Searching For Treasure

Sick and Sunburn

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:01:00 -0700

Every trip has its great days and its not-so-great ones. This has been true just about everywhere I have traveled. Must just be the way life is... reminding us to be dependent on the Lord and not on our own strength.

On Wednesday I was sick with some kind of food poisoning. I was not really sick so much as my stomach did not like something that I ate. I was nauseous and throwing up for most of the day. It is at moments like these that I am so thankful for good health. Praise God! I have been healthy and energetic for most of my travels over the past years! I really do not thank God enough for those moments. Sick days like these remind me I am not working on my own strength.

Then over the weekend I went with my host family to the beach. I spent about 3 hours in the sun. I wore lots of sunscreen (spf 50 for all the moms who are skeptical). However, a combination of my malaria medication, the tropical sun, and my white skin (from months bundled up in Chicago) left me with a horrible sunburn. It was so painful the past two days and last night the itching was so bad I could not fall asleep. I am now sitting in the airport in Brisbane, Australia waiting for my return flight to the United States. I really am amazed at how fragile we are as human beings. Sunburn has been such a good reminder for me that it really is the Lord who sustains me day to day. Whenever I am tempted to believe that Zach Cann is able to change to the world and do great things all I have to do is remember the sting of my back to know that God can take me whenever he wishes... and thus he can use me however he chooses.

Oh that small reminders like sickness and sunburn would constantly remind me that my hope is in the Lord, and in Him only! “For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.” Romans 14:7-9

Tribal Living

Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:56:54 -0700

Just spent 3 days in Beng, a small tribal village in the Finisterre mountains. Joey and Brooke have a small hut in the village where they live 3-4 days a week. Beng is only a one hour hike from their main home, but weather usually only permits one to hike in the morning. Plus, they realize it is good to live with the people and build relationships that way.

The huts are fairly comfortable. They are made out of Bamboo, wood, and reeds. The center of every hut has a fire pit which helps keeps the hut warm and dry—a necessity in the continually wet and cold jungle. Being in the mountains it can get fairly cold at night and when it rains, which is almost everyday.

The fire pit in each hut also serves as the kitchen, where families can cook hot meals over an open flame. The downside to this system is that kids often fall into the fire pits and get severely burned. There are no chimneys and so the smoke can often stink the eyes and lungs. I learned that by laying down on the bamboo floors I could stay under the smoke for the most part.

There are no roads to speak of... just lots of muddy paths. There is so much rain and water that the trails rarely ever dry out. The locals walk around just fine, but I found myself slipping and sliding all over the place. Several times I fell backwards leaving wonderful mud stains on the back of my shorts. The locals all laughed when they saw this. I had to laugh too. I thought the most dangerous thing in the jungle would be the snakes and strange diseases... little did I know that I was way more likely to just slip down a mountainside.

10 reasons helicopters are awesome

Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:55:32 -0700

In all of my travels I have used a lot of different modes of transportation, from big planes to small ones, from motorcycles to bicycles, from jeepnies to taxis. However, until yesterday I had never travelled by helicopter. Yesterday I had to. Flying by helicopter is the only way to get into Mibu without hiking days through the mountainous jungle. And of all the means of travel I think the helicopter is my favorite... here are ten reasons why:

Helicopters can land without a runway. Obvious, I know. But I never realized how awesome a feat this is until I landed in the Tartaglias front yard. And taking off by going straight up is an amazing sensation.
The ride is much smoother than small airplanes. Single engine airplanes bumpy. Take off and landing are always rough, especially on an unpaved landing strip.
You can sit in the front seat! This is my favorite part of flying in a helicopter. I love being able to see in front of me and get to watch the pilot fly. It also made for some amazing photos.
You get to wear cool headsets. The helicopter is so loud that it would be impossible to talk with anyone, so everyone wears headsets with microphones.
It flies closer to the ground than an airplane so you can see more. It was amazing to fly over mountain ridges where it looked like I could almost reach out and touch the trees below me.
BIG windows! Not only are the windows bigger, but they are all over the place! Again, a great feature for someone who wants to take photos. It allows one to feel like they are experiencing the whole flight.
When you first enter the aircraft the pilot says, “If we crash and I die here is how to radio for help. ”When’s the last time you heard a pilot say this during the “in case of loss of cabin pressure” speech?
No terminals, security checks, random searches... you just land and climb out and you’re done. It’s also fun when a lot of people are standing just a 100 feet away waiting for you.
Ability to fly backwards. It is an odd sensation, and there is definite potential for airsickness, but it is a feat that is impossible in any airplane.
Ability to not fly anywhere. The craziest moment in a helicopter flight is when the pilot hovers in midair. I remember looking around me for some indication that we were moving. It was like being suspending in midair and yet there was nothing attached either below or above us. It reminded me of the sensation of snorkeling... being suspending above the ocean floor.

Protection in Port Moresby

Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:41:30 -0700

Before leaving for Papua New Guinea I looked up some information about Port Moresby, the country’s capital. I had heard that it was a dangerous place to go. And indeed, the research confirmed this. I found numerous sites that compared the conditions and safety to cities like Kinshasa in the DR Congo. Having experienced some of these place I had a pretty good idea of how bad it could be.

I made arrangements to stay in a missionary guest house in Port Moresby for my layover there last night. The only problem was I needed to take a taxi from the airport to the guest house and back again. The taxies in Port Moresby are notoriously corrupt and dangerous. Being a foreigner I would have a hard time knowing which taxi to take.

I arrived at the international terminal in Port Moresby without any real plan for how to get to the missionary guest house. My intention was to just ask a security guard to point me in the right direction. But as it turns out, God had different plans. After I made it through immigration and customs I walked out into the main lobby of the airport. It was virtually empty since the flight I was on was probably the last of the day. I approached a security guard and asked him if he could help me get a taxi. He gave me one look and asked, “First time here?” From the look on his face I could tell it was rhetorical. I answered anyway. “Yes.” He strongly suggested I just ask the hotel to send a ride for me. “But they don’t offer that service!” I said. “It is a missionary guest house.” I pointed to a sheet that had the address... “Mapang Missionary Guest House.”

Just then I heard a voice behind me. “Hey mate, I’m headed there.” It was a young man with an Australian accent. He introduced himself as David. “I’ll share a taxi with you,” he offered. We got a taxi and as we drove he explained that he had been stuck at the airport for two hours because his bags had not arrived with his flight so he was waiting for mine to arrive with his luggage. When we got to the guest house I learned he was going to be my roommate too! God was so kind to provide me with a travel companion and friend within the very first hour of my time in PNG. I learned later that he is a pastor in Australia and came to PNG once a year to do Bible training with SIL.

As if that was not gracious enough of God, He also provided my ride back to the airport. The host family at the guest home said they had to do an errand by the airport early in the morning anyway. Praise God for his provision and protection! What should have been the most dangerous and difficult portion of my trip ended up being quite easy and enjoyable.

Biblical Theology

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:29:29 -0700

In According To Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible, Graeme Goldsworthy uses his experience as a former lecturer at Moore Theological College to introduce his readers the topic of biblical theology in a way that is simple yet profound. By the author’s own admission the book is introductory, but he asserts “that many preachers, ministers, Scripture teachers, youth leaders and the like will benefit from studying the basics of biblical theology” (9). Goldsworthy is clear and precise with his wording and uses many charts and diagrams to aid the understanding of his readers.

According to Plan introduces its audience to biblical theology through the lens of four questions: why, how, what, and where? In this way Goldsworthy leads his audience through all the presuppositions, strategies, and concepts behind the idea of biblical theology. Given the fact that this book is an introduction to biblical theology, the discussion on most topics is brief. However, Goldsworthy is careful to point to the depth of the topic he is dealing with.

The first part of the book deals with why people should study biblical theology. Using numerous quotes from Scripture Goldsworthy helps show the need for having a strategy to understand difficult passages (19-20) and how to relate the Old Testament to the New (21-23). The main argument in this section is that an understanding of “the message of the whole Bible” will help in understanding various passages and themes (21). This is what biblical theology is all about—seeking to understand the Bible as a whole.

The second part of the book addresses the question of how to do biblical theology. This section explains the need for presuppositions in order to study the Bible since presuppositions are going to drastically affect the interpretation. The Christian position, according the Goldsworthy, is to accept “the Bible is God’s Word, and that it says what God wants it to say in exactly the way he wants to say it” (44). He argues the only alternative is to believe that man is the final determiner of truth. Goldsworthy is concerned with the methods Christians use to interpret scripture in this section. Perhaps the key point in this section is where Goldsworthy points out the need for the Jesus Christ to be central in one’s thinking and perspective. In the words of the author, “Biblical theology begins with the word about Christ and seeks to understand how the New Testament’s testimony relates to all that God has revealed in the Old Testament” (71). This is the foundation for the third section on the actual content of biblical theology.

The third part of According to Plan is the core of the book—taking up over two-thirds of the book. Here Goldsworthy starts with an chapter on the gospel of Jesus Christ and how this is the starting point in biblical theology. He argues Jesus is the gospel—the good news—of both the Old and New Testaments (81-88). From here Goldsworthy unfolds the progressive revelation of Scripture from Creation (90-100) to the fall (102-111) to the incarnation of “the Word” (201-209) to the Eschaton and the consummation of all things (226-234). All the while he continues to point back to Christ as “the yes and amen” to all the promises of God (2 Corinthians 1:20). Throughout this section, the reader is introduced to a wide range of topics that biblical theologians study and how each item relates to the whole of Scripture and redemptive history. While not all topics are covered and those that are covered are done so briefly, this section provides a solid base for further study.

The final part deals with where the content of biblical theology can be applied. Although it is the shortest section of the book, it is by no means the least important in that it suggests how one might put biblical theology into practice. Goldsworthy gives two examples of how this might look and directs his readers to other sources. This section is potentially very helpful for the novice theologian who seeks to use the strategies laid out in this book to study other themes or passages of Scripture. Goldsworthy shows how understanding the “big picture” of Scripture can lend insight and understanding “in a way we may never have thought possible” (235).

As an introduction to biblical theology, Graeme Goldsworthy has done an excellent job making a complex topic accessible to the average Christian who has neither the time nor the resources to digest a heavy academic work. Goldsworthy communicates clearly what is at stake in the practice of biblical theology. The definitions and charts throughout the book give the reader a good, general understanding of the flow of Scripture without over-simplifying the depth and grandeur of the Word of God. The organization and layout of book is very helpful for clear communication on topics that are often hard to communicate, especially on an introductory level.

The greatest strengths of Goldsworthy’s According to Plan are his emphases on the authority of Scripture and the functional centrality of the Gospel. He is immovable on the point that the Bible needs to be viewed and studied as the actual word of God. And at the center of God’s Word is Jesus Christ. Goldsworthy does a great job communicating the truth that “Jesus Christ in his life, death, and resurrection is the fixed point of reference for the understanding of the whole of reality” (60). God has made himself known to the world through both the special revelation of Scripture and through Jesus Christ—God incarnate (37). These truths are central, and the author does well to keep them so.

For all its strengths, According to Plan is not without its weaknesses. A major point of weakness is how Goldsworthy only briefly addresses why a Christian should study biblical theology. Without a firm grasp of why it is important to study Scripture as a whole and keep the gospel central, then the study of the topics of themselves can be perceived as irrelevant to the reader. Even though this book is a introduction to the topic, the section on why study biblical theology deserves more than the six pages given to it by Goldsworthy. Interpreting Scripture, telling Bible stories, and wrestling with difficult passages are great reasons to study the Bible, but they are certainly not the only reasons. Goldsworthy’s work would be strengthen with a few more examples and insights into the value of biblical theology for everyday life. In the section on how to do biblical theology Goldsworthy makes the statement, “Every Christian is a theologian” (29). Christians need to see what a high calling this is. Dwelling longer on the question of “why biblical theology” would have only strengthened the book as a whole.

Other weaknesses can be found in the book’s blanket statements on how to read and study the Bible. It is one thing to have right perspective, but it is another thing entirely to claim it should be read in a certain order. At one point Goldsworthy makes the statement, "In doing biblical theology as Christians, we do not start at Genesis 1 and work our way forward until we discover where it is all leading. Rather we first come to Christ, and he directs us to study the Old Testament in the light of the gospel" (55). This is a weak application of the centrality of the gospel in Bible reading and study. Jesus is indeed the answer, but perhaps it is okay to see Christ as the conclusion and fulfillment, rather than always at the beginning as a foregone conclusion. There may be great value for people to read Scripture, starting in Genesis, and read through all the history leading up to the incarnation of the Word. Imagine the impact of reading the words of Matthew 1:1 after just having read all the history and prophesy of the Israelites: “This is the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” This approach to reading scripture does not infringe upon the message of the gospel. Reading from the perspective of the Israelites has some merit in better understanding why the gospel is such good news. Goldsworthy’s introduction to biblical theology would benefit from encouraging multiple approaches to studying the Bible. In this way the gospel is not sacrificed and greater perspective is gained.

Another concept that is in need of further discussion in this book is ‘typology.’ Goldsworthy states that typology sees historical promises and prophesies as “the first stages of progressively revealed truths” (68). Goldsworthy then qualifies that he is only referring to how typology can explain the seeming discrepancy between the original promises and their fulfillments. The point Goldsworthy makes is valid and is a good one to consider. However, in the Bible there are numerous literal histories and allegorical poems. Thus, it seems dangerous to imply that all the promises of God fall only into the category of typology. This would have been a good topic to ‘flush out’ further.

This short introduction to biblical theology is a great resource. As with nearly all books, there are weaknesses, but the strengths of Goldsworthy’s work are hard to come by on a topic as large and grad as biblical theology. Is simple, yet careful treatment of the study of the Bible will certainly have value for the beginner, as well as the more advanced theologian. Many would do well to be reminded of the basics. The warning that should come with any book like this to not settle for the basics, but to then go deeper in the truths of Scripture. According to Plan is a great introduction, but hopefully it will give its readers a greater appetite for more.

Visit to the Bahai House of Worship

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:37:19 -0700

On February 5, 2010 I, along with three other Trinity students, visited The Bahá’í House of Worship for the North American Continent. We visited the House of Worship on a cold, windy afternoon. Nestled between a residential community and Lake Michigan, the building has a commanding presence in Wilmette, Illinois. The gardens surrounding The Bahá’í House of Worship were covered in snow and partly closed due to some renovations. Even so, the grounds are impressive and photos during the tour would give me a taste of their true beauty.

The auditorium was empty when we entered, except for a staff member, who greeted us warmly. We explained that we were students and wanted to learn more about the Bahá’í faith. She invited us to look around and ask her any question we might have. She explained that The Bahá’í House of Worship is open for anyone of any faith to come and pray. The Bahá’í Faith believes “that all religions share a common source and aim.”

As I entered the auditorium it was an impressive sight. It is very spacious with comfortable seating arranged in a semi circle around a small stand and microphone. The architecture is very intricate. I learned from the welcome pamphlet that the temples elaborate designs were created through “an innovative process of casting concrete panels composed of quartz crystal and white cement.” Combined with the tranquil atmosphere, the building invites a sense of awe and worship. When one enters the main part of the auditorium it is impossible not to look up at the vaulted ceiling with all of its layers of ornamentation and giant Arabic symbol, which means “O Glory of the All Glorious.”

For a few minutes I just sat in one of the cushioned seats and stared at the ceiling. The building has a similar feeling to being in a large Catholic cathedral in Europe. It is hard not to be impressed by the size, scope, and complex detail of the building itself. The French-Canadian architect Louis Bourgeois wanted the building to be a place where people could “pray to God and meditate in an atmosphere of beauty and light.” Sunlight makes its way into the auditorium from all sides—through the lattice-decorated ceiling and the window saturated walls. The There are nine entrances to the circular building. (Nine is considered a sacred number for the Bahá’í as it is the highest single digit number. A common symbol of the Bahá’í faith is the nine-pointed star.) Above each of the doors are quotations from the writings of Bahá’u’lláh, the founder of the Bahá’í religion. Phrases like “the earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens” and “ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch” speak of the unity and peace that the Bahá’í promote. They believe in one God and that all religions proclaim the same truths about him.

I asked about worship services and learned that there are lots of meetings and devotionals throughout the week. However, there is never a sermon. People may read from sacred scriptures, sing songs, or pray, but they may not exposit from and interpret scriptures. The Bahá’í believe that only the prophets of God may actually interpret and make clear the words and will of God. When I asked how many people attend any given event she said between ten and fifty. However, she explained that there are over 150,000 Bahá’í in the United States, with adherents in every state.

Once we were finished with our time in the auditorium we were led to a small elevator that took us to the Visitor Center on the lower level. There we were shown a fifteen-minute movie on the Bahá’í faith—its history, core beliefs, and values. The Bahá’í believe that “all the prophets of God proclaim the same faith.” They believe prophets like Buddha, Abraham, Krishna, Muhammad, and Jesus are all messengers of the same God sent at different times to proclaim God’s message for that age. They believe Bahá’u’lláh is God’s messenger for this age and seek “to follow His laws and teachings.

The Visitor Center was very informative and well organized. It was clean, neat, and modern. There were photos, descriptions, maps, and charts—all designed to help teach a visitor learn about the Bahá’í faith. It was interesting that the Bahá’í religion is considered to be the youngest monotheistic religion in the world. Despite its short existence, the Bahá’í boast more than five million adherents in over 200 countries making it “the second-most-widespread religion in the world.”

For me, one of the most interesting beliefs of the Bahá’í faith is that “the long-awaited era of peace promised by God in the world’s sacred scriptures is now within reach.” The Bahá’í firmly believe that peace and world unity are possibilities. Our guide told us over and over again about how science and technology are giving us the opportunity to unite as never before. One of the core principles of the Bahá’í faith is that world peace will be upheld by a world government. The Bahá’í believe that the world now possesses the tools and resources to make this happen. According to our guide, as technology makes the world smaller the need for unity and peace becomes greater. This peace and unity can be found in the writings and teaching of Bahá’u’lláh. She said people may look at other sacred scriptures, such as the Bible, but only Bahá’u’lláh has a clear message from God for our day and age.

The most personal part of our visit came when our guide shared her story about becoming a Bahá’í and how her faith has sustained her through a lot of suffering and pain. She was born and raised in Eastern Europe and came to states as an adult where she experienced a lot discrimination. She explained the many ways her faith and hope have helped her deal with her son’s serious health problems. She claims, without any doubt, that her faith is genuine. The words and phrases she used in her personal testimony sounded very familiar to testimonies I have heard from Christians. She answered most of our questions about general beliefs and practices, but she was very guarded and hesitant to discuss doctrine. She kept saying that we are not capable of interpreting Scripture, which is why Bahá’u’lláh has already done it for us. When we asked her how the Bahá’í deal with the truth claims of other religions she merely said, “Just read the works of Bahá’u’lláh and you will understand. He explains all of these mysteries.” She was cautious, but always kind. I am almost certain she smiled through most of our tour. And as our tour came to and end she gave each of us hugs and told us we would always be welcome back.

As we left The Bahá’í House of Worship I stopped by their bookstore to look at some of the titles. They have numerous books on family, healing racism and prejudice, and the power of prayer. Although they do sell books, the Bahá’í do not accept any donations from people who are not members. As our guide informed us, “Contributing to Bahá’í funds is considered a spiritual privilege restricted to members of the Bahá’í faith.” As a visitor this helped me to feel relaxed and enjoy my visit without the pressure of giving any alms or donations in return. It also made me feel like the Bahá’í truly believe in the message they teach others. They are not trying to market truth, but teach it.

All in all, our visit lasted about three hours. We did not have the opportunity to visit an actual service, but it was a great opportunity to learn more about the Bahá’í faith. The facilities were comfortable and engaging and the staff were warm and welcoming. It was a unique and rewarding experience and has hopefully taught me how to better welcome visitors to my own church in the future.

Cross-cultural investigations

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:16:52 -0700

Being listened to is so close
to being loved that most people
cannot tell the difference.

David Oxberg

An Introductory Story
In May of 2008 I was working as a journalist for a non-government organization in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). On one occasion I was riding with a group of African aid workers from Kinshasa, the capital city, to a small village about eight hours away. Several times along the way we were stopped at military road blocks to have our passports and identity cards checked. Every time they saw my American passport they would delay and say there was a problem. They were waiting for me to pay them something to speed up the process so I could get on my way. I was not the only one confronted with bribery. I noticed that every time we crossed a bridge, armed soldiers would walk toward the car. Our driver would stick his hand out the window holding some bank notes in the local currency and hand it to the soldiers. In exchange for the money the soldiers would let us cross the bridge without incident.

Later that night I sat at a table with community leaders and pastors from the small village of Gikongoro. I was interviewing them for a story on the church’s role in community development. During the interview I asked them for their perspective on God’s love for the people of Gikongoro. They shared that the greatest hindrance to understanding God’s love was the people’s perception of authority. Authority in the DRC was something to be feared, but the laws they upheld were all flexible for the right price. A bribe could buy anything. These men explained that many people in the DRC view God in the same way. He is to be feared, but he will also flex his standards for the right price. Many people serve in their churches and in their communities because they believe it is something they can use in negotiating with God. All the pastors agreed this has been a hard perspective to overcome in their culture.

As a journalist I thought, how is it possible for me to enter a country for two weeks, interview a handful of people, and write a story that accurately reflects the dynamics of faith in a culture? I had already traveled to five other countries in Africa doing similar research, but this was the first time I realized that my perspective on church involvement in communities was not adequate for the task. I had to consider that there were ways in which my own culture had influenced my perspective on the church’s role in community development. All my questions and observations were going to be tinged with my own perspective. How could I tell the stories of churches in the DRC that would help my American audience understand the actual conundrum facing these churches? I realized that I was going to have to become a better listener to better communicator. There was more to listening than just asking questions and writing down responses. Listening requires understanding the people behind the words themselves.

Introduction
Journalism is a world of communication. From newspapers to radio to television broadcasts, journalism uses words, sounds, and images to communicate a message. But how do journalists get the message to begin with? Hopefully, a good journalist gets his/her story from listening well. Not many attribute good listening to good journalism, but perhaps more should.

Western culture has a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. Listening is a lost art. According to author and professor, Tite Tiénu, Christendom suffers from what he calls “the dialogue of the deaf between the West and the rest” as western Christians attempt to judge what is right and wrong from a distance. There are too many words being spoken, too many judgments being made, and not enough questions being asked. Tiénu points out that the solution to such division and strife is to listen and learn from one another again. This is especially true for journalists as they report on cultures and practices foreign to their own context. The responsibility of the journalist is to report facts—it is the expectation of the industry and the presumption of the populous. The purpose of this paper is not to show the many ways in which the press has failed in this calling. There have been many failures to be sure, but the focus of this paper is more positive in its approach. It seeks to offer a strategy for accurately exploring and reporting facts in a cross-cultural context. Whether reporting on politics, events, or religion, a journalist must be able to listen to and learn from the culture in which the story originates.

The strategy outlined below is threefold. First, a journalist ought to become a student of truth and culture and a good listener. Second, a journalist must be informed in his questions and investigations of culture. And lastly, a journalist must be humble and honest in communicating the facts to his audience. I suggest this as a strategy through which a journalist can effectively and accurately fulfill his duty and calling.

Section I: The Dialogue Between Truth and Culture
Journalism is a social tool that is both influenced by culture but also helps to shape culture. There is give and take. Carley H. Dodd, in his book Dynamics of Intercultural Communication, explains that media not only reports the news and current events but also has the power to persuade a passive, malleable audience. Under the auspices of promoting awareness media can push an agenda. Ideally, a journalist is interested in the facts of a story and not mere opinion. However, the interpretation of facts can change from culture to culture. Ultimately, the journalist is going to have to decide which facts to include and how to present them. To do this a journalist ought to consider what I call the dialogue between truth and culture. This assumes that there are some things that are, in fact, true. It also assumes that there are going to be things that are merely cultural and do not necessarily fall neatly into categories of right and wrong.

I was in Andhra Pradesh, India in the fall of 2007 working at a publishing office in the capital city of Hyderabad. There were lots of practices and customs that were foreign to me: greeting people with a bow, eating food with the fingers of my right hand, and bargaining for prices on the streets. The foreignness of such practices does not make them right or wrong in comparison to customs that I am used to in the West. However, for me to ignore or display contempt for these customs as a guest in their culture can be wrong and have negative consequences for myself, my relationship with people, and ultimately, my work. On the other hand, when I see hordes of Hindu faithful parading down the streets in honor and worship to their gods, should I join in? Is there a right or wrong way to respond to such festivities? While it may be wrong for me to ignorantly assume I know why they practice a belief in particular manner, it would not be wrong for me to refrain from believing as they do.

These are issues and questions that all journalists must face—it is a dialogue they must engage. The journalist who ignores this is going to offend on both sides by neither holding to what he/she believes to be true nor respecting the culture being engaged. Roger Rosenblatt, a writer for Time Magazine, asserts that many journalists are guilty of assuming “that imposing a truth is the same as arriving at one.” He argues that journalism is not a source of truth since journalism deals with small elements of a story and discontinuity in daily happenings. “It is the business of journalism to present facts accurately,” not to present the truth. But the healthy journalist, while realizing this reality, will keep the truth in mind. To illustrate this point Rosenblatt offers this example:
Journalism tends to focus on the poor when the poor make news, usually dramatic news like a tenement fire or a march on Washington. But the poor are poor all the time. It is not journalism's ordinary business to deal with the unstartling normalities of life. Reporters need a story, something shapely and elegant. Poverty is disorderly, anticlimactic and endless. If one wants truth about the poor, one must look where the [journalist] is not.
I suggest that it is healthy for the journalist to confront this reality. A journalist in essence, is not so much writing truth as he is writing within it. A good journalist will seek to accurately report the facts of his/her story without ignoring the plight and perspective of the culture and all the while seeking to be honest, straightforward and clear.

For the Christian journalist this dialogue between truth and culture becomes more distinguishable. The Christian journalist ought to consider the culture of his audience and the truth of his beliefs. Author and professor Duane Elmer, in his book Cross-Cultural Connections, challenges people who work cross-culturally (journalists included) to attempt to respect both God’s world and God’s Word. He writes, “If we treat everything as right and wrong, we do a great disservice to the human diversity God has placed in creation. If we treat everything as a cultural difference, we do a great disservice to the God who authored an uncompromising word of truth.” There is uncompromising truth and there are many, many cultures. A journalist, especially a Christian one, ought to engage both.

Section II: Informed Investigations
As one engages in the dialogue between truth and culture it is necessary to understand the context for asking questions. Questions are going to facilitate learning and understanding, but it is important to realize that questions themselves can have cultural influence. In journalism the wording of a question can have drastic consequences on the response. For example, let’s assume I am writing a story on how people perceive their government. If I were to ask, “Why do you hate your government?” I am assuming that they do hate their government. I am also assuming that they know what I am referring to when I say government. Questions can easily slant toward a particular response or reaction. These misunderstandings can often happen unknowingly, especially in a cross-cultural setting.

On two separate occasions I was working in Manila, the capital city of the Philippines. As I prepared to go the first time I was warned by a missionary about the danger of asking questions in a shame based culture. He explained that people will not always respond to questions directly. For example, I could walk up to a man on the streets of Manila and ask for directions to a store, but even if the man does not know where the store is he will still tell me how to get there. He does this because I have asked for information and it would be shameful for him not to give it to me. His answer is his best guess as to where the store might be and it seeks to avoid bringing shame on either of us. This is a phenomenon has been referred to as the relational ‘yes’. When I went back to the Philippines a few years later as a journalist I encountered the problem again. As I interviewed mayors, clergy, and laypersons, I had to be very careful with the wording of my questions so as not to shame them. I made lots of mistakes, but I quickly realized that understanding particular elements of a culture were going to affect the accuracy and effectiveness of my reporting.

In order to have accurate and effective communication one must also have informed investigations. A journalist must appreciate that cultures communicate differently and, as previously stated in section one of this essay, different does not necessarily denote right or wrong. Cultures are going to have different perspectives on many things such as time, relationships, and logic to name a few. If a journalist is going to have any success in his endeavors he must “understand and accept others as having a viewpoint as worthy of consideration as [his] own.” A cultural perspective is worthy of consideration not only because of its value to people that hold such beliefs, but also because these beliefs have consequences. Judith M. Buddenbaum, a journalism professor at Colorado University, explains that journalist cannot ignore the beliefs of others since “those beliefs influence people’s attitudes, opinions, and behaviors. Those attitudes, opinions and behaviors have consequences that extend to believers and nonbelievers alike.” Having this perspective will hopefully help the journalist to ask effective, informed questions.

There are many sources that provide insight into some of the differences a journalist may encounter in a cross-cultural setting. Dodd’s book on The Dynamics of Intercultural Communication and Elmer’s book on Cross-Cultural Connections both outline major ways in which cultures can differ in perspective and communication. One example would be different perspectives on time. Culture A might focus more on events and spending quality time with people, whereas culture B might emphasize schedules and being efficient with time. A journalist coming from culture B into culture A is going to have to change his/her expectations in order to respect the culture A and effectively communicate the message back to culture B. A good journalist is going to seek understanding on both sides in order to fulfill his/her purpose in reporting the facts accurately. In another book by Duane Elmer, Cross-Cultural Servanthood, understanding is defined as “the ability to see patterns of behavior and values that reveal the integrity of a people.” An informed journalist is one that seeks such understanding.

Section III: Humble Communication
As important as listening is (and it is very important!) a journalist is eventually going to communicate something. This is the goal of journalism and the job of the journalist. The business of journalism is the accurate communication of facts. The first two sections focus on how a journalist can glean the facts needed to communicate. Now the focus shifts to how a journalist ought to communicate those facts in a manner consistent with his/her responsibility. This stems from the reality that it is possible for journalists to gather facts well and communicate them poorly. As stated before, media can have a great deal of influence on a culture and society. It can promote a certain agenda. It can tear down old stereotypes, enforce current ones, or create new ones. Therefore, it is important that the journalist consider his/her influence. As Rosenblatt asserts in his article on journalism and truth: “If people cannot rely on the news for facts then journalism has no reason for being.”

In February of 2009 I was working on several stories in the Brazilian Amazon just a few miles east of the Columbian and Peruvian borders. The main city in that region is called Tabatinga. As I prepared to travel I read a lot of stories about Tabatinga and this particular region of the Amazon. Most of what I read was not comforting news. Several news reports recounted how dangerous the region is because of the illegal drug trade between Brazil, Peru, and Columbia. Other articles talked about the gang violence in Tabatinga. My experience, however, was very different from these news stories. I lived with a wonderful family just a short distance down the river from Tabatinga and had several wonderful interviews with pastors and community leaders in the area. I spent eight days in this region before flying to my next post in Manus, a large city in north-central Brazil. The main question I faced as I started writing my blogs and articles was how do I portray this small region of Brazil? Do I merely recount the glorious eight days I spent near Tabatinga or do I include the more sobering reality I had only heard about? In this instance, I realized that the best way to serve my audience back in the United States was to be honest about my experience and humble in my perspective. I had only been in the region for eight days and so my perspective was very limited. I realized I could not authoritatively write about what life is like there, but I could accurately convey what I had learned from experiences, research, and interviews.

It does a journalist good to recognize the limitations inherent in the task of reporting. Previous sections served to show the limited perspective of a journalist on any given story in any given culture. Humble communication reveals these limitations. In order to communicate facts accurately, a journalist must communicate them humbly. Unfortunately, many journalists suffer from what Duane Elmer calls “the right answer virus,” where a journalist communicates his message through his medium “with such authority and finality that people find little room for discussion.” This dilemma is compounded by the fact that audiences do not question the information they receive from media. Rosenblatt suggests this is because they have forgotten or ignored other sources available to them. Tom Goldstein, in his book entitled Journalism and Truth: Strange Bedfellows, presents the problem bluntly: “Many premier practitioners of the craft have long passed off fiction as fact, preying on a gullible and too-trusting public.”

Granted, not all violations of humble communication are obvious at first. In the movie Blood Diamond there is a journalist who is trying to find to names, dates, and facts behind brutal corruption in the diamond industry. The journalist, Maddy Bowen, meets a smuggler, Danny Archer, who questions the motives of her journalistic investigation. Consider the following conversation between the two of them:
Maddy Bowen: Is it possible you don’t care how many people die because of the deals you do?
Danny Archer: Look. People here kill each other as a way of life. It has always been like that.
Maddy Bowen: So you can just watch it and go about your day?
Danny Archer: Maybe we should all just write about it then? … Tell me something. How long have you been here in Africa?
Maddy Bowen: Three months. And before that, Afghanistan and Bosnia.
Danny Archer: You come here with your laptop computer and your malaria medicine and your little bottles of hand sanitizer and you think you’re going to change the outcome? Let me tell you something. You sell blood diamonds too.
Maddy Bowen: Really? Tell me, how is that?
Danny Archer: Who do you think buys the stones that I bring out? Dreamy American girls who want a storybook wedding and a big shiny rock just like the ones they see in the advertisements of your politically correct magazines… You see? We are in business together. Get over yourself, darling.
Although Archer’s character may not be the most morally upright person, he does bring up a valid point. He offers a counter perspective to the journalist who thinks that she can change the course of bloody war. There is nothing wrong with desiring that outcome, but it is very important to realize the odds. Archer, although pessimistic, does bring a lot more perspective and insight to the situation in Sierra Leon. The end of the movie applauds the efforts of Maddy Bowen while still acknowledging that more efforts are needed. Advances have been made, but the war is not over. Journalists, whether writing about politics or religion, need to be humble about their perspective and honest about their experiences. In this way, there can hopefully be clear, effective communication.

Conclusion
The work of a journalist is not an easy task. I certainly have not done it perfectly. Carnegie Calian, author of The Gospel According to The Wall Street Journal, put it well when he said, “Man is certainly imperfect, but he is not without hope.” The same could be said for the journalist. The task before the journalist will never be done perfectly, but there are strategies for accurately exploring facts across cultures. This is one strategy. It is certainly not all encompassing, nor perfect in its application. This strategy seeks to challenge the journalist to listen to truth and culture, to seek understanding, and to communicate humbly. Perhaps in this way journalists will be able to accurately report the facts such that people will be able to seek “the knowledge of the times in order to grasp the character of the world, to survive in the world, perhaps to move it.” Journalism may not be an easy profession that is simple in its applications, but it is certainly a grand profession capable of empowering great insight and change. The hope that drives this paper is that no journalist would take such a calling lightly.

Bibliography
Buddenbaum, Judith M. “Covering Religion” Chapter 8 in Journalism Across Cultures, ed. Fritz Cropp, Cynthia M. Frisby, and Dean Mills (Ames: Iowa, 2003), 159-184

Calian, Carnegie Samuel. The Gospel According to The Wall Street Journal (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975)

Dodd, H Carley. Dynamics of Intercultural Communication (Madison: Brown and Benchmark, 1995)

Elmer, Duane. Cross-Cultural Communication (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 2002)

___________. Cross-Cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006)

“Get Over Yourself.” Blood Diamond, DVD. Directed by Edward Zwick, Burbank, CA: Warner Bros. Pictures, 2006.

Goldstein, Tom. Journalism and Truth: Strange Bedfellows
(Evanston: Northwestern, 2007)

Hubbard, Benjamin J. “The Importance of the Religion Angle in Reporting on Current Events” Chapter 1 in Reporting Religion: Facts and Faith, ed. Benjamin J. Hubbard (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1990), 3-19

Johnston, Robert K. Reel Spirituality: Theology and Film in Dialogue. 2nd Ed (Grand Rapids, Baker, 2006)

Pojman, Louis P. “A Defense of Ethical Objectivism” Chapter 5 in Moral Philosophy: A Reader. 4th Ed, ed. Louis P. Pojman and Peter Tramel (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2009), 38-52

Rosenblatt, Roger. “Essay: Journalism and the Larger Truth” from Time.com. July 2, 1984. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,926693,00.html (accessed on January 24, 2009)

Tite Tiénu. “Christian Theology in an Era of World Christianity.” In Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity, ed. Craig Ott and Harold A. Netland (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2006), 37-51

The Ghost Dance

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:12:07 -0700

A research paper by Zachary Cann, Nate Crouch, Nicole Ondrik, and Martha Potgieter. This paper was the final product for a class on New Religious Movements at Trinity International University. The class was led and taught by Dr. Michael Cooper.

THE GHOST DANCE: HISTORY, ISSUES IN RESEARCH, DOCTRINES, AND CONTEMPORARY ADAPTATIONS

“What tribe or people has not had its golden age, before Pandora’s box was loosed, when women were nymphs and dryads and men were gods and heroes! And when the race lies crushed and groaning beneath an alien yoke, how natural is the dream of a redeemer, an Arthur, who shall return from exile or awake from some long sleep to drive out the usurper and win back for his people what they have lost. The hope becomes a faith and the faith becomes the creed of priests and prophets, until the hero is a god and the dream a religion, looking to some great miracle of nature in its culmination and accomplishment. The doctrines of the Hindu avatar, the Hebrew Messiah, the Christian millennium, and the Hesûnanin of the Indian Ghost Dance are essentially the same, and have their origin in a hope and longing to all humanity.” – James Mooney, The Ghost Dance and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890 (1896)

Introduction:

According to anthropologist, James Mooney, “hope becomes a faith and…faith becomes the creed of priests and prophets, until the hero is a god…” Mooney sees this phenomenon as global and cross-cultural. We will endeavor to look at one example of this type of irredentist religious movement: the Ghost Dance. We will argue that the Ghost Dance is one instance of a pan-Native American new religious movement that transcends boundaries of time and space. It is an example of religious vitality and continues to live on in the present day.

This essay will have four distinct sections. In our investigation of the Ghost Dance, we will first discuss the history of the original dance as it was manifested in the late 1800’s. Next, we will reveal some particularly difficult challenges that we encountered while trying to understand, contextualize, and study the Ghost Dance. These challenges are manifested in secrecy, oral tradition, and syncretism. These challenges are not necessarily bad, we withhold from making an ideological judgment here. Rather, we are interested in delineating the specific reasons why the Ghost Dance is a particularly difficult new religious movement to study and understand. An exposition of these issues in research will enable us to overcome them. Once we have discussed the challenges, we will endeavor to explain the core doctrinal beliefs exhibited in the Ghost Dance. Lastly, we will look at four contemporary adaptations of the historical Ghost Dance and argue that the dance is still very much alive. Rather than being seen as a dead religion, we encourage you to view the Ghost Dance as a living legacy and practice.

For the full article in pdf format click here: GhostDance.pdf

Emerging and Emergent

Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:19:22 -0700

Contextual Concern:
In chapter one of Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures, Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bloger seek to answer the question, “What is the Emerging Church?” They admit that answering such a question is not an easy task since there are many churches that claim to fall under the term emerging and yet not all of them agree on what that means. On one end of the spectrum there are pastors like Johnny Baker who define the emerging church as something that already exists. In his view it is merely “new forms of church that relate to the emerging culture” (Gibbs: 41). Others, however, like Karen Ward, see “the emerging church as a process that is just beginning” (42). Gibbs and Bloger seem to take it a step further and say that the universal church itself could be considered an emerging church. In this view, any church could be labeled as “emerging” since each “emerges as it engages the complex mosaic of cultures represented by the peoples of the earth” (43). Obviously some churches morph into the culture more than others. For this reason Gibbs and Bloger limit their scope and definition greatly.

Gibbs and Bloger define emerging churches as “communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures” (44). They go on to set out nine practices that should be embodied by emerging churches: identify with the life of Jesus, transform the secular realm, live highly communal lives, welcome strangers, serve with generosity, participate as producers, create as created beings, lead as a body, and take part in spiritual activities (45). The primary concern here is an ecclesiological one. Does the emerging church, as defined by Gibbs and Bloger, adhere to teachings about the church in Scripture? As culture changes, how much should the church change and contextualize to be relevant? Gibbs and Bloger suggest that in order for the church to have a transforming effect the church must also remain relevant to the culture it is trying to reach. Churches that are not emerging (including evangelical churches) “face numerous challenges if they are to embody their way of life within a postmodern culture” (46). Emerging churches on the other hand are “dismantling ideas of church that simply are not viable in postmodern culture [since] neither the gospel nor the culture demands these expressions of the faith” (28-29).

Hermeneutics:
Gibbs and Bloger quote many sources in their article, but the Bible is not one of them. A direct quotation from Scripture is nowhere to be found—not even in the footnotes. There is mention of “the gospel” on page 29 and “the way of Jesus” on page 44, but neither is defined. In an article that seeks to show how churches disagree how to approach culture, it is odd that its authors assume universal consensus on missio Dei, the kingdom of God, and the gospel.

In this article it is impossible to determine how Scripture is being interpreted other than to say it is not being interpreted. However, it does offer a glimpse into the importance of Scripture in defining the emerging church. It has none. Gibbs and Bloger quote numerous pastors and authors and reference various historical events, but the Bible is absent. Scripture does not even make the list of nine practices for the emerging church. I could be argued that the use of Scripture is implicit in practices such as “identifying with the life of Jesus” (45), but the authors give no direct reason or evidence to suggest this is the case. In a world where there are numerous views of who Jesus is (or was) and what he accomplished leaves the readers to wonder what Jesus they are choosing to identify with.

Evaluation:
Gibbs and Bloger do raise a good question. How are churches going to respond to postmodern culture? In many ways it is a question the church has been facing since its conception. As the church began to spread beyond the Jewish population into the world of the Gentiles it was met with different cultures. The Jerusalem Council, as recorded in Acts 15, offers a picture of how the early church dealt with early conflict between faith in Christ and cultural identity. However, Gibbs and Bloger do not offer a satisfactory answer to the question by overemphasizing the importance of culture at the expense of attention to Scripture. Culture is important, but not all-important. The church without the Word of God may still be an ecclesia in that it is an “assembly” of people, but it is not the church as described by the Bible. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that procedes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology, suggests that the teaching of the Word is an essential “means of grace” within the church in that “it is the instrument God uses to impart spiritual life to them and bring them to salvation” (Grudem: 952).

The Word of God is vital in addressing other cultures—even in changing cultures such as the shift in America from modernity to post-modernity that Gibbs and Bloger describe. In The Hermeneutical Spiral, Grant Osborne argues that the “dynamic aspect of the Word is the task of contextualization” (Osborne: 410, emphasis added). Without the grounding content of biblical revelation the task of contextualization is going to be vague and dangerous. This confusion is even seen in the article itself. Gibbs and Bloger quote one emerging church pastor as saying, “I’m post-Protestant. In many ways, I feel post-charismatic as well. By this I mean that I’m confused” (Gibbs: 36). Perhaps this confusion arises because he is looking to culture for his cues instead of Scripture.

Mark Driscoll, in his article “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church,” offers the perspective that Gibbs and Bloger are lacking. He affirms the veracity of Scripture and that it’s truths “are constant, unchanging, and meant for all people, times, and places” (Driscoll: 90). At the same time he acknowledges, “The methods by which truth is articulated and practiced must be culturally appropriated and therefore constantly translated” (90). From here he outlines the possible directions a church can take in regards to doctrine and practice: “If both doctrine and practice are constant, the result is dead orthodoxy… If both doctrine and practice are constantly changing, the result is living heresy… But, if doctrine is constant and practice is always changing, the result is living orthodoxy” (91). Gibbs and Bloger rightfully see that the gospel and the church must be contextualized to be relevant to the emerging postmodern culture. However, without a Biblical foundation there is danger of both doctrine and practice constantly changing.

Response:
The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the church in Ephesus, explains some of the roles of the church. In chapter 3 Paul writes that God “gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (3:11-12). God loves the church and desires for it to be built up. Later in Ephesians Paul writes, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (5:25). The foundation of the Church is not culture but Christ. Paul explains the church must attain “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (3:13-14). Culture is good, but it is fallen and has its dangers. As Grant Osborne points out, there is a lot within our own culture (whether modern or postmodern) that “is far removed from the biblical culture” (Osborne: 410). Paul recognizes this and points the Ephesian church to where they can find stability—Christ. And the means to attain to the fullness of Christ, Paul says, is through the church. From here Paul moves into the communication of the gospel. “Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each of you speak the truth with his neighbor…be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (3:25,32).
Gibbs and Bloger are right that there are many ways in which the church today could better love and serve their neighbors. This must be done! As they say, the emerging church should “be a safe place to ask the difficult questions” (Gibbs: 46). But this will only be true if the church has the means to biblically answer those questions. As Paul Hiebert proclaims so adamantly in his article “Critical Contextualization,” a culture should take its questions to Scripture and to leaders (pastors and missionaries) who can teach the Word. “In each culture Christians face new questions for which they must find biblical answers” (Hiebert: 108). This is the message of Paul in the Bible, and it ought to be the core of every church.

Bibliography
Driscoll, Mark. "A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church" Criswell Theological Review, (NS 3:2 Spring 2006), pages87-93

Gibbs, Eddie and Ryan K. Bolger. “What is the Emerging Church?” chapter 1 n Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005) pages 27-46

Grudem, Wayne. “Means of Grace Within the Church” chapter 48 in Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), pages 950-965

Hiebert, Paul G. “Critical Contextualization” Chapter 4 in Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), pages 75-92.

Osborne, Grant R. “Homiletics I: Contextualization”, Chapter 17, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 2nd edition (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006), pages 410-433.

All scripture references are from The Holy Bible, English
Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001)

African Ecclesiology

Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:36:25 -0700

Contextual Concern:
In an article entitled “On the Road toward an African Ecclesiology” author Bénézet Bujo presents two African ecclesiological models for the purpose of examining their usefulness in a genuine Black African ecclesiology (139). The first model incorporates an African theology of ancestors and the other from a concept of a council of elders. The contextual concern is to determine what a church might look like in an African context based on African perceptions. Bujo argues, “Africa needs an ecclesiology that is rooted in indigenous culture.” (149).

In the first model, Bujo explains, “An ancestor is the main pillar on which a community or clan rests…such an understanding of community seems to be important for an African model of Church” (140). African churches can identify with Old Testament accounts of Abraham as the “single tribal father” from a historic perspective and they can relate to Jesus as the tribal father “of the eschatological Israel” from a spiritual and more holistic perspective (140). Bujo does make it clear that in order for a theology of ancestors to apply to Jesus it must take on new form because “Jesus the Christ is not simply the primordial ancestor or primordial tribal father; rather, he is this by virtue of his surpassing this entire complex of ideas in an incomparable manner” (141). Bujo characterizes this difference by referring to Jesus as the “Proto-Ancestor.”

Bujo makes the connection between the Christological implications of ancestry and the ecclesiological implications by introducing the idea of the ancestor tree. He explains that an ancestor tree from the African perspective is a tree that never dies, but rather derives its life from the roots, symbolized by the primordial ancestor—“The branches and leaves of this tree symbolize the numerous descendants of the deceased. They owe to him their verdure. Separated from him they cannot survive” (141). Bujo therefore suggests, “The Church is the ever-verdant tree on the grace of Jesus Christ by which he is made visible” (142). The implications of this analogy for the church in Africa are massive. The tree analogy provides an awareness of community and interconnectedness. It reminds the African church that they are “guaranteed the life that never dies when they are rooted in the life of the Trinity through the very same Christ risen to life” (142).

The second model of ecclesiology draws from an African concept of eldership. The elders of a community are considered to be wise because of their age. Bujo explains that in a Black African context it is the word (wisdom) “that holds the community together” (142). This is then compared to the Word of God, which is defined in 1 Corinthians as “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1:24). So when the Gospel of John refers to Jesus as the Word that became flesh, this is understood to mean that Jesus “not only possesses Wisdom but is and speaks Wisdom herself” (143). Bujo uses this concept to reveal how western theologians have misunderstood the usefulness of relating Christ to an ancestor. The west sees an ancestor as someone dead and outdated, but in an African context, “the future of youth depends on the life-giving wisdom of the ancients.”

Bujo concludes his article with a plea for a palaver between Scripture, leaders in the church, and the local (African) church itself. When one of these pieces is missing the dialogue fails to be useful. If theology is only disputed and never practiced it has no use. Bujo profoundly connects such a perspective with the incarnation of Jesus: “God take human reality so seriously that he descends in the very depths of the non-divine in order to speak to humans in human form” (146).

Hermeneutic:
There are biblical references and illustrations all over Bujo’s article. From beginning to end he is trying to make connections between the African perspective and biblical truth. In several cases he asserts the authority of Scripture over cultural perceptions, while at the same time showing the ways in which African perspectives may have some lasting value for the church. One prime example of this is his use of 1 Corinthians 15 to show how an African community might perceive Jesus as an ancestor—“the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” (15:45). He goes on to say that an African context would not limit Jesus to preconceived ideas of ancestor, but rather would open the door for seeing Christ “the real life-giving source” (141). The Scripture gives relevance to the analogy of ancestor, not the other way around. The concept of ancestor is subject to the Word of God in this instance. So much so that Bujo gives Christ a different characterization.

It is surprising that Bujo does not use Scripture references more often in his article. The analogy of the ancestor tree has numerous parallels to John 15:5 where Jesus tells his disciples, “I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.” And yet Bujo makes no connection to this passage. Perhaps he assumes his audience will make the association, but I think it would have made his argument stronger to include these references.

When Bujo describes the African palaver model he tells his audience the role that Scripture ought to have. He writes, “Sacred Scripture and tradition should be stewarded jointly by the head of the Church and all local churches” (148). For Bujo, Scripture seems to have an equal standing with tradition and church dialogue in regards to making decisions.

Evaluation:
The strength of Bujo’s argument is that he gives value to cultural perspectives while still maintaining the transforming power and authority of Scripture. Such an approach accomplishes two things. First, it allows cultures to ask questions and search for biblical answers. Paul Hiebert’s “Critical Contextualization” is rooted in the reality that “in each culture Christians face new questions for which they must find biblical answers” (Hiebert: 108). Second, Bujo’s approach prevents the dangerous slide into syncretism. Phil Parshall and Timothy Tennent deal with similar issues regarding ecclesiology in the Muslim world. Parshall suggests that the solution is to find a way where “Muslims can remain Muslims, yet live as true followers of the Lord Jesus” (Parshall: 415). Tennent, on the other hand, suggests that there is a difference between religious identity and cultural identity. He argues a believer’s “new identity in Christ is so powerful that it does, in fact, provide a new religious identity without the need to sever their former cultural identity” (Tennent: 204, emphasis added). Although Bujo does not directly talk about identity, his argument seems to acknowledge that there is value in cultural identity by giving credence to African perspectives on ancestors and elders. However he also affirms that there is new life in Christ. Toward the end of his article Bujo plainly states, “Only the one who decreases for the sake of the Lord can have life to the full” (149).

It is ironic that the greatest weakness of Bujo’s argument lies in his preconceived notions of what the church is and how it is structured. As a diocesan priest from Zaire, Bujo portrays the structure and government of the church in a way that reflects his experience. This hinders his argument by limiting its application to those under similar structures (those under papal rule). And perhaps the solution Bujo is looking for is found outside his concept of church government. Bujo suggests the solutions to a successful African palaver is for “all members of the church (bishops, priests, laymen and laywomen, rich, poor, illerates, and so on)” to have a say in decisions. This sounds ideal but it is not realistic. Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology, expounds on the various forms of church government. One of his criticisms of the Presbyterian model is, “The effective power in the church government seems, in practice, to be too removed from the final control of the laypeople in the church” (Grudem: 927). Bujo’s passion to see the church address cultural issues and dialogue about theology in an indigenous context is good. However, his conclusions might be more feasible were he to let go of some preconceived notions of church government.

Response:
I applaud Bujo’s desire to see dialogue between his culture (his context) and the Word of God in regards to ecclesiology. I thought both the theology of ancestors and the council of elders had merit in African perceptions of what church could look like for them. The only sentence that caused me concern was where Bujo stated, “The Church in Africa needs an ecclesiology that is truly rooted in indigenous culture” (149). An ecclesiology, although influenced by culture, should be rooted in Christ. Ephesians chapters 4 and 5 both claim that “Jesus is the head of the body, the church” (5:23). Church leadership and culture ought to be subservient to the supremacy of Christ in all things—including the church.

In regards to Bujo’s problem with theology and ecclesiology being too western I would propose that each local church follow the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:
The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
As I pointed out in the evaluation, it might be best to consider a different form of church government that is more conducive to dialogue concerning culture and the Scriptures. However, changing church government is not an easy task either. Luke’s account of the Bereans in Acts 17 gives every church a simple, yet powerful tool: discernment. The Bereans were eager for the Word, but they did not receive it blindly. The recognized the fallibility of humanity and the authority of Scripture. Any ecclesia would be wise to follow their example.

Bibliography

Bujo, Bénézet. “On the Road toward an African Ecclesiology” in The African Synod, ed. Maura Browne (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1996), pages 139-151

Grudem, Wayne. “Church Government” chapter 47 in Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), pages 904-949

Hiebert, Paul G. “Critical Contextualization” Chapter 4 in Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), pages 75-92.

Parshall, Phil. “Danger! New Directions in Contextualization” with responses from John Travis and Dean Gilliland. Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34:4 (Oct 1998):404-417.

Tennent, Timothy C. “Ecclesiology: Followers of Jesus in Islamic Mosques” Chapter 8 in Theology in the Context of World Christianity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) pages 193-219

All scripture references are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001)

Humbled by God

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:26:42 -0700

Introduction:
Sehnsucht is a German word that is foreign to most, but no doubt everyone can identify with its meaning. It is a word that connotes longing, seeking, and searching. It is a desire for something that we do not have. Humanity seeks for meaning in money, love, sex, prestige, and a thousand other things, but in the end we are dissatisfied. Cornelius Plantinga Jr. puts it well when he says, “The truth is that nothing in this earth can finally satisfy us. Much can make us content for a time, but nothing can fill us to the brim.” So what is it that ultimately satisfies such longing? Jesus answers this question in the gospel of John when he asserts his supreme singularity over everything by claiming, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (14:6). He claims supremacy over other forms of hope. In regards to finding hope in financial gain, Jesus says, “No one can serve two maters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money” (Matthew 6:24). And the list could go on. God desires for his creatures to rely on him in all things. This is humility.

Humility is not merely self-giving or the absence of pride, but also reliance on God. Andrew Murray defines humility as “the place of entire dependence on God.” So where do we learn of such humility? If reliance on God is the only thing that truly satisfies, how do we attain it? I submit that it is God who demonstrates and gives humility through Christ to creatures lost and blinded by pride. In this paper I will look at this thesis in three parts. First, the humility of God exists in his triune self and is demonstrated through his creation. Second, God’s humility is the glory from which man fell and continues to fall short of in his pride. And finally, it is Christ’s humility that repairs the damage done by the pride of man.

For this paper I have chosen to focus on humility—how it works in the Godhead and its relation to mankind. To do this I presuppose the existence of God and the authority of his word, the Holy Bible. Each these presuppositions are worthy and grand topics for discussion, but proving their existence and authority is not the purpose of this paper. It must also be said that the topics found in this book are worthy of volumes, but are limited here to a smattering of pages. As the title says, this is merely a brief look.

Section I: God as the Image of Humility
God’s humility is clearly seen within the trinity and demonstrated through creation of the world. God’s humility is first and foremost demonstrated in the trinity. Even if the world did not exist, the triune God would still give of himself among the three persons of the trinity—Father, Son, and Spirit. Cornelius Plantinga Jr., in his book Engaging God’s World, explains the humility of God within the trinity well: “Self-giving love is the dynamic currency of the Trinitarian life of God. The persons within God exalt each other, commune with each other, defer to one another.” It is God’s nature to give of himself and depend on himself. If humility is both giving up oneself and relying upon God, then God exhibits humility in perfection.

God gave of himself in creation. Everything that is in creation was given its existence by God and nothing in creation can repay him. In the Book of Job God says, “Who has given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine” (41:11). God claims creation. His creating the world was no accident or whim. It was intentional—for his glory and for our good. Creation was an act that brought glory to God and allowed God to give of himself to his creatures. Jonathan Edwards, in his book The End for Which God Created the World, explains how God’s passion for his glory does not conflict with the joy and contentment of mankind. He writes, “God in seeking his glory seeks the good of his creatures, because the emanation of his glory implies the happiness of his creatures.” God gives of himself to creation as an overflow of the humility within the trinity. Plantinga helps make this connection for us: “I think we could say that hospitality thrives within the triune life of God and then spreads wonderfully to the creatures of God.” God gives, but in all of creation is still completely reliant on God alone. The humility of God reflects God’s love and reliance on himself, not on his creatures. Consider what Jonathan Edwards writes in regards to all creation relying on God and not vise versa:
The notion of God creating the world, in order to receive anything properly from the creature, is not only contrary to the nature of God, but inconsistent with the notion of creation; which implies a being receiving its existence, and all that belongs to it, out of nothing. And this implies the most perfect, absolute, and universal derivation and dependence. Now, if the creature receives its ALL from God, entirely and perfectly, how is it possible that it should have any thing to add to God to make him in any respect more than he was before, and so the Creator become dependent on the creature?
This is sometimes hard to comprehend because we confuse God’s ability to create with man’s. In Hebrew, the word bara (baw-raw’) means, “to create absolutely” or “to create from nothing (exnihilo).” It is used in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created…” Man cannot create something from nothing. We are limited to the objects, thoughts, ideas, and means at our disposal. God has no such limitations. As Edwards emphasized, such limitations are contrary to the nature of God.

God is supreme and yet he gives of himself. In Paul’s letter to Romans he writes of God, “For from him, through him, and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever” (11:36). He is supreme, he needs nothing, and yet he gives. From him are all things. He gives of himself. It is a self-giving love that happens within the trinity and without to the world. This self-giving love is the ultimate humility. Plantinga, in his exegesis of John 17:21, explains, “the Father is ‘in’ the Son and that the Son is ‘in’ the Father, and that each loves and glorifies the other” (Plantinga, 20). The love that Jesus is speaking of in the Gospel of John is the word agape (ag-ah’-pay), which Paul defines for us in his letter to the church in Corinth: “Love (agape) is not proud” (13:4). There is no pride in love. It is pure humility.

Section II: Man’s Fall from Humility into Pride—Sin
God’s humility is the glory from which man fell and continues to fall short of in his pride. According the Genesis 2, Adam and Eve could have eaten “of every tree of the garden” except for one—“of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” (2:16). Despite such variety of permissible trees to choose from, the third chapter of Genesis reveals Adam and Eve standing before the forbidden tree, eating its fruit. What God had given and provided for man was not considered to be enough, so man grasped for himself, thereby separating man from the triune God who constantly gives of himself. The humility of God is juxtaposed with the pride of Adam and Eve who “try to be ‘like God, knowing good and evil’ and succeed only in alienating themselves from God and from each other.” In essence, from this point on man becomes defined by self-grasping pride—always seeking his own interests ahead of the interests of others. Self-giving love and complete reliance on God was shattered. There was no humility allowing man to be full of God, but now only the empty cavity of human pride.

In section one we observed the humility of God and how it relates to himself and to his creation. It was also seen that man’s contentment and happiness were not at odds with God and his glory. Andrew Murray points out that our truest purpose, joy, and contentment—the answer to our Sehnsucht—comes from “the true self-denial to which our [God] calls us, the acknowledgement that self has nothing good in it, except as an empty vessel which God must fill, and that its claim to be or do anything may not for a moment be allowed.” True humility is what man was created for, because it brings glory to God and fulfills our greatest longing as creatures. And this humility is only possible when man finds the contentment and joy that is found in the humility of God—the joyous display of self-giving love and reliance on God himself. It comes back to recognizing the premise set out by the Apostle Paul and Edwards that God is all. Murray writes along the same theme: “Humility is simply the sense of entire nothingness, which comes when we see how truly God is all.”

This is the humility from which man has fallen. And in the same that that Adam fell, so has all of mankind. Ultimately, human beings seek for themselves. I say “ultimately” because there are human actions that might be perceived to be self-giving love. For example, the fact that Eve gave some of the fruit to her husband could be seen as an act of giving up something of importance for the sake of another. Saint Augustine, in his Confessions, explains how “Pride imitates what is lofty” and masquerades as humility by seeking glory and honor. It fails in that pride does not pursue the glory and honor of God. Plantinga writes, “Idolatry is also the act of putting [something] alongside God and trying to serve them both. Your god, said Martin Luther, is ‘whatever your heart clings to.’” Jonathan Edwards, in his Religious Affections, explains our selfishness in this way, “The more excellent things are…the more manifold will the counterfeits be. So there are perhaps no graces that have more counterfeits than love and humility.” The human heart is full of idols and counterfeits. John Calvin, the 17th century Reformer, wrote, “From this we may gather that man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols.” In pride, man seeks for fulfillment and satisfaction in other things, while at the same time refusing to rely on God alone. John Hare, in God’s Call, suggests that we as humans have put our “affections for advantage” above our affections for God—“an improper regard for the self” and one’s own happiness. Human affections, desires, and hopes have been tarnished by pride.

At this point it is important to note that the image of God’s humility has not been completely destroyed by pride. There is still the longing in man that was mentioned at the beginning of the paper. Plantinga explains that this longing shows us that all our petty wants, desires, and passions for things and persons “point us beyond the things of earth to the ultimate reality of God” (Plantinga, 7). However, this longing is not sufficient. C. S. Lewis also spoke of such a longing—our “inconsolable secret”—but concluded that we ultimately do not seek after God because “we are far too easily pleased” with our present circumstances and sins. And although human longings may reflect that mankind was created by God and for God, Paul and the Psalmist reveal the harsh truth: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks after God.” Humans have a longing, but they do not know what it is that they long for. C. S. Lewis explains, “We cannot tell it because it is a desire for something that has never actually appeared in our existence.” Our experience has been a reliance on God but a reliance on ourselves. We have only known pride. The first chapter of C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity shows the nature of mankind to hold people to a moral standard—one that they themselves do not fully adhere to. People either insist that they have not fallen short of the standard or else they make excuses like Adam and Eve did in the garden. But all of man’s scheming and all of man’s excuses do nothing to restore humility. Thomas á Kempis states the case well when he says, “A proud and avaricious man never rests… he followed his passions and they did not lead to the peace he sought.” So how is humanity to attain to such peace? How is humility to be restored to a creature lost in his own pride? Scripture leads us to but one answer to these questions: The humility of Jesus Christ.

Section III: The Humility of Christ as the Remedy for Man’s Pride
The humility of Christ is the only remedy for man’ pride. It is impossible for the pride of humanity (described in section II) to attain to the humility of God for which it was created (described in section I). Jesus Christ is the only one able to restore a right relationship between man and God—one where man finds the end of his longings in his reliance upon his creator. This is only possible because Jesus is part of the triune God. Christ’s birth does not signify the beginning of his existence, but rather his coming to earth as God incarnate. Jesus was there at creation. He is part of Holy Trinity that exudes humility. Plantinga suggests, “[T]hose mysterious places in the New Testament that speak of creation as happening ‘through Christ’ reveal that the agent of redemption is also the agent of creation.” God, through Christ, mediated his self-giving love at creation, and now God is once more mediating his love through Jesus incarnate. While man continues to live in pride and grasp for himself, Jesus shows us that God continues to give of himself.

Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, portrays Jesus’ humility by showing us that “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men… becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (2:6-8). The obedience that this verse speaks of is obedience to God the Father. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says, “I seek not my own will, but the will of him who sent me” (5:30) and then later on he states, “"When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him” (8:28-29). Jesus gives the perfect example of humility—self-giving love and complete reliance on God. Andrew Murray argues that humility of Christ may be “the root and essence of all his character as our redeemer.” He writes:
What is the incarnation but his heavenly humility, his emptying himself and becoming a man? What is his life on earth but humility; his taking the form of a servant? And what is his atonement but humility? “He humbled himself and became obedient unto death.” And what is his ascension and his glory, but humility exalted to the throne and crowned with glory? “He humbled himself, therefore God highly exalted him.” In Heaven, where he was with the Father, in his birth, in his life, in his death, in his sitting on the throne, it is all, it is nothing but humility.
All of this is a continued representation of the humility of God. After the fall of mankind into pride, God did not stop demonstrating his self-giving love to creation.

Christ is not merely a representation of God’s self-giving love, but a mediator of it. Man is not meant to simply watch Jesus and act accordingly. There must be a change of desire at the root of mankind and his self-grasping nature. When it comes to “the choice between putting first either ourselves or the glory of God” we choose ourselves every time. Consider the crowds in John 6, who after Jesus fed them miraculously wanted to “take him by force to make him king” (6:15). They wanted to follow Jesus on their terms because of what he could give them. This does not produce humility. It is a false reliance on God. It is not true self-denial. Visser’t Hooft, in his book No Other Name, maintains the supremacy of Christ over all other forms of hope, “To add something to Christ is really to take something away from him… He is the completely sufficient revelation.” As was put forward at the beginning of the article, Jesus is the only way to the Father, and thus, man cannot serve two masters. For this to happen pride must be destroyed. Man must no longer look for hope or salvation or purpose in any other person than Christ.

Christ mediates the humility of God by filling up the void that is pride. Paul in his letter to the Galatians writes, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (2:20). Before Christ saves a man, that man is filled with his own affections and desires for other things apart from God. But as we have seen before, these things are not ultimate and they do not satisfy our longing. Pride gives the appearance of sustenance, but in the end “the LORD of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up—and it shall be brought low” (Isaiah 2:12). Pride is a vacuum. Humility is substance to fill that void, and it can only come through Christ and his love. Paul makes the connection between Christ’s love and being filled with God in his letter to the Ephesians:
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
John Calvin drives the point home when he writes, “As long as Christ remains outside of us… all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless…; all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him.” And Andrew Murray shows how this indwelling of God through Christ brings mankind back to the humility for which it was created: “According to what we have of God, will be our real humility, because humility is nothing but the disappearance of self in the vision that God is all.”

Conclusion:
The remedy for man’s sehnsucht (his longing) is in finding his hope in giving of himself and relying wholly on God. This is the humility that is presented to us by God through the Trinity, through creation, and through Jesus Christ. This humility is the purpose and glory from which we have fallen. The absence of humility and the desire for other things is pride—an affection for advantage and a looking out for one’s own interests instead of the glory of God. Thankfully, God did not leave us to suffer want and deprivation in our pride, but in an act of self-giving love, sent his son to accomplish what we could not in our hearts. And Jesus Christ, being fully God, humbled himself and became obedient to death so that “whoever should believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Although this look into humility has been brief, it is clear that it is God, and God alone, who demonstrates and gives humility through Christ to creatures lost and blinded by pride. And the more we have of Christ will be our true humility. “This is the true self-denial to which our Savior calls us, the acknowledgement that self has nothing good in it, except as an empty vessel which God must fill.”

Oh, to be emptier, lowlier,
Mean, unnoticed, and unknown
And to God a vessel holier,
Filled with Christ, and Christ alone!

Battling the unbelief of syncretism

Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:33:51 -0700

Syncretism is commonly defined as an attempt to reconcile or blend disparaging beliefs. There is little room for such blending in the gospels. Jesus asserts his supreme singularity over other religions by claiming, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). He also claims supremacy over other forms of hope. In regards to finding hope in financial gain, Jesus says, “No one can serve two maters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money” (Matthew 6:24). In other words, one cannot claim hope in Jesus and other things—it is one or the other. Dean Flemming, in his book Contextualization in the New Testament, expresses his concern that syncretism “is a constant challenge to gospel.” The challenge of syncretism is nothing new to the church. Paul’s letter to the church in Colossae reveals that the church there was struggling with the temptation to find hope in various other teachings and philosophies of the time. This paper will take a look at what Paul did to address the problem of syncretism in Colossae, by looking at some of the ideas put forward by Flemming and then by addressing some insights into how the letter to the Colossians teaches the church to deal with syncretism in other contexts.

Before exploring Flemming’s analysis of Colossians it may be helpful to set the context. The letter to the Colossians is attributed to the Apostle Paul (most notably because the greeting refers to him as the author). The religious atmosphere in Colossae at the time is hard to determine. In Colossians, Paul writes of “philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition” (2:8) and brings up issues regarding “circumcision” (2:13), “questions of food and drink” (16), and “asceticism and worship of angels” (2:18). John M.B. Barclay puts it well when he says, “[These polemic elements] no doubt made sense to the original recipients of this letter, but they are apt to bewilder us who read their correspondence two millennia later.” Whatever the situation in Colossae, Paul was concerned enough to write a letter to the church there. Homer A. Kent, Jr. makes it clear that whatever the heresy was within the church “its various features were sufficiently attractive to offer some appeal to almost everyone. To those who were impressed by ritual, it offered the rites and ceremonies of Moses. To the mystically inclined it advocated angel worship.” In other words, the Colossian syncretism was blending beliefs such that there was something for everyone. Clinton E. Arnold suggests that Christians in Colossae were battling a wide range of religious traditions, from mystery traditions to magic to local philosophers to Judaism. It was a melting pot of religious belief and it seems the church was having a hard time distinguishing its beliefs and doctrines from the religions around them. Flemming suggests one of the root problems of the Colossian syncretism was that it “assumed that trusting Christ alone was not enough to deal with the vise-grip that cosmic powers held on people. The gospel of Christ needed to be supplemented with additional ‘wisdom’ (Col 2:23).”

Flemming, in chapter 7 of his book, analyzes Paul’s reaction to the syncretism endangering the church in Colossae. He proposes that the situation in Colossae requires “a new translation of the gospel into language and theological categories that speak to the vital issues at hand.” Flemming points out two ways in which Paul combats syncretism. First, Paul does so by exposing the insufficiency of human philosophies and traditions. He warns the Colossians of the pitfalls of other beliefs that are capable of “disqualifying” (Col 2:18) those in the church. Second, Flemming points out how Paul’s main focus is not necessarily to refute all the wrong doctrines, but rather focus “positively on the meaning of the gospel.” Paul is trying to give the Colossians of view of Christ that is so grand and glorious that it kills the fear and distrust at the root of syncretistic practices. As Homer Kent pointed out earlier, there are certainly dangers to the beliefs and practices of the church in Colossae, but these dangers must be crushed under a greater view of God, and the complete salvation offered through Jesus Christ. Flemming rightly points out that for Paul, “exalted Christology and Christ-centered living walk hand in hand.”

At the beginning of Colossians, Paul gives thanks to God for the faith of the Colossians. He encourages them by saying they have heard and “understood the grace of God in truth” (Col 1:6). Paul affirms them. However, Flemming explains that Paul’s language not only seeks to encourage but also to convict. When Paul speaks of “the word of truth, the gospel” in verse 5, Flemming says this “implies a contrast with the rival teaching.” In this way, Paul is able to encourage the believers and give them a greater view of God, while doing it in such a way that addresses the needs and concerns of his readers. In essence, it is a corrective contexualization. It is gentle, yet convicting. Visser’t Hooft calls this a pastoral approach—“Instead of immediately condemning the heretical tendencies in their midst, he begins by a series of tremendous affirmations about the real significance of Christ.” In this way, Paul shows how proclaiming the supremacy of Christ is the best way to battle syncretism.

The Colossian syncretism, in many ways, seemed to supplant the saving work of Jesus. For this reason, Paul includes one of the most glorious and cosmic descriptions of Jesus in Colossians 1:15-20. This hymn, as it is often referred to, makes it very clear that Christ is supreme over all things—“He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17). Flemming demonstrates that such a grand hymn is meant to call readers (especially the Colossians) “to embrace the gospel story as a controlling narrative, one that subverts all other competing stories.” To help show this Flemming analyzes Paul’s choice of words throughout the letter. Flemming convincingly shows how Paul’s use of words like “wisdom” and “the truth” are meant to address those interested in philosophy, and how phrases like “fullness of deity” (Col 2:9) are meant to show that “the Colossians have no cause to pay homage to any lesser supernatural beings or angel-intermediaries.” Flemming uses this technique to show how Paul may have taken words and phrases from local jargon to help aid in the understanding of Christ as supreme over all things. This does not mean, Paul sacrifices the singularity and power of the gospel, but it does mean he tries to use words and ideas that his readers will understand.

Perhaps Flemming’s most convincing word study is of the greek word mystêrion, meaning mystery. Clinton Arnold explains how Colossae was full of people advocating philosophy, magic, and mysteries. However, both Arnold and Flemming argue that Paul is not using the word in the same way, but rather using a familiar word to refer to a much deeper truth. Arnold argues, “Paul’s concept of mystery should be interpreted on the basis of the use of ‘mystery’ in the book of Daniel where it is used to describe the hiddenness or secrecy of the redemptive plan of God.” Flemming takes it a step further. He shows how Paul must have used this word to address a felt need in his readers. Many in the Colossian church are turning to syncretism because they do not see Christ as sufficient to explain all mysteries. Flemming argues that Paul’s letter uses the word mystery to reveal to the church that they “need look for no other mystery, because according to God’s eternal purpose they have received the mystery: Christ.” Whatever question, fear, or uncertainty that is plaguing the Colossians, Paul makes it quite clear that the answer is not other deities, supernatural beings, or ritual practices, but Christ alone.

The second chapter of Colossians seeks to apply the Christology laid out in chapter one. Paul commands his readers to be responsive to the hope and supremacy of Christ: “Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him” (Col 2:6). This truth serves as the foundation for several warnings against false teaching and false doctrine. Homer Kent, in his layout of Colossians, suggests that this section of the letter (Col 2:1-23) is essentially Paul’s “warning against the philosophies of men,” whether they take the form of rituals, angel worship, or asceticism. Although this paper does not directly deal with chapter three, Flemming helps clarify the purpose of chapter two by showing how Paul encourages his audience to “seek the things above” (Col 3:1) and “exchange what is earthly for what is heavenly.” Therefore, all the warnings in chapter two about the philosophies of men are meant to point to their insufficiency because of the Christology laid out in chapter one, but also to show how they can walk in obedience and hope under Christ and Christ alone. Flemming goes so far as to say, “The goal of Christ’s redeeming work in Colossians is no less than genuine perfection in Christ: a radical renewal into the image of the Creator (Col 3:10).” It is evident that Paul not only wants to convince the church in Colossae of Christ’s supremacy over all other powers and philosophies, but also that it is Christ’s power that ultimately changes and transforms lives.

There are numerous conclusions to be drawn from Colossians in regards to how the church might address syncretism today. Flemming concludes with several insights into how Paul addressed the issue of syncretism. Flemming points out that Paul saw syncretism as a serious issue that needed to be addressed. “If Jesus is Lord, he can have no rivals.” But Flemming also shows how Paul did not react to this problem with a prepackaged theology, but “instead, he allows the gospel to speak directly to their fears and felt needs.” In other words, the truth of the gospel does not change, but rather the presentation of it. In fact, Flemming argues that the presentation of the gospel must change to lift up Christ as supreme over every culture, idea, and philosophy. He states, “Such a positive reformulation of the gospel, then and now, leaves no valid reason to syncretize the faith.”

Flemming’s arguments and insights are sound. However, there is one section in Colossians chapter one that is missing in his analysis. Toward the end of the chapter Paul writes, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col 1:24). Flemming does not address how the sufferings of Paul may have aided his presentation of the gospel to the church in Colossae. In fact, nearly all the commentaries I consulted seem to skip over this verse as if it is merely an acknowledgement that Paul is in prison. However, John Piper, in a sermon entitled Doing Missions when Dying is Gain, points to this verse as evidence that “Paul’s understanding of his mission is that there is one thing lacking in the sufferings of Jesus, and that is the demonstration of Christ’s love for people through suffering… Christ intends for the great commission to be a presentation to the nations of the sufferings of his cross in the suffering of his people.” In other words, Paul’s testimony to the church in Colossae goes beyond mere words. Paul claims that Christ is supreme over all things and then demonstrates his own contentment and joy in that hope. Remember that Paul exhorts the Colossians to “be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father” (Col 1:11-12). How is it possible for them to find joy in Jesus in the midst of a world that seems full of powers, both spiritual and physical? This small testimony at the end of chapter one is Paul’s way of showing that Christ’s hope is supreme over all things—even when one is suffering in prison. Prison seems like the last place one might have reason to be joyful, but as Flemming points out, “Colossians flips every human expectation on its head.” Paul shows how Christ, in his sufferings, overcame and “disarmed” all other powers and “put them to open shame” (Col 8:15).

As the church seeks to proclaim Christ in a way that is true and contextualized I think it must also demonstrate its own contentment and joy in the gospel. A missionary who begrudges his or her situation in life is not going to be a good testimony to the amazing sufficiency and supremacy of Christ. Visser’t Hooft maintains, “To add something to Christ is really to take something away from him… He is the completely sufficient revelation.” Paul believes this with all his strength. He proclaims this mystery of Christ which how now been revealed and then brings it back to his own obedience and hope: “For this I toil, struggling with all [Christ’s] energy that he powerfully works within me” (Col 1:29). It is a small testimony to the amazing power of Christ to meet us and sustain us wherever we are at. This is not a contradiction to Flemming’s analysis, but I think it is a much-needed addition. A positive reformulation of the gospel and a demonstration of its life and power are both necessary to battle syncretism effectively.

Bibliography

Clinton Arnold. The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface
between Christianity and Folk Belief at
Colossae (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996)

Dean Flemming. Contextualization in the New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
2005) pages 214-233

Homer A. Kent, Jr. Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1978)

John M.G. Barclay. Colossians and Philemon (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pages 37-96

John Piper, Doing Missions when Dying is Gain. Desiring God. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByDate/1996/1813_Doing_Missions_When_Dying_Is_Gain/ (accessed on October 15, 2009)

Visser’t Hooft, W. A. “The New Testament’s Struggle with Syncretism” Chapter 2 in No other Name: the Choice Between Syncretism and Christian Universalism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), pages 50-82

William Hendriksen. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Colossians and Philemon. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1964)

All scripture references are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001)

Love and Obedience

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:57:57 -0700

“For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.”
James 2:26

The words of James haunt most Christians—and if they do not, they should. On the one hand, Scripture clearly teaches that it is “by grace you have been saved through faith. And this not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). But on the other hand, Scripture also includes the book of James and other verses like, “Strive for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). No wonder Scripture also exhorts its readers to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). The concepts of obedience and salvation are the main themes of a book entitled, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. These sayings come from monks and hermits who took the hard-sayings of Jesus seriously. From vows of poverty to celibacy to solitude, these monks pursued holiness as a lifestyle. Although reading such an account does not necessarily invite one to a similar life of monkhood, it certainly challenges one to consider how to approach the hard sayings of Jesus. To put it bluntly, when Jesus commands to “Go, sell all you have and give to the poor and come and follow me,” what is one to do? Christians are saved by grace alone. They are also called to pursue holiness. I propose that the pursuit of holiness is only possible through love for God and love for others as given by the Spirit of God. Let us consider each of these points separately.

The pursuit of holiness requires love for God. In the Gospel of Matthew, when asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus replies, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (22:37). Then, in the Gospel of John, Jesus says, “If you love me you will obey my commandments” (14:15). Obedience is contingent on love of God. It does not say that if you obey God, then you love him. It says the opposite: Love precedes obedience. John Hare, in his book God’s Call: Moral Realism, God’s Commands, and Human Autonomy, offers Scotus’ idea concerning obedience and love for God: “Scotus thinks that our final end is to be co-lovers with God, in Latin condiligentes. And he thinks that God chooses the route to this end, and gives it to us by command. But the final end is not obedience to the command, but the kind of union of will that we call love” (52). Here we understand that love of God not only precedes obedience is the means and ends to obedience as well. There is also a glimpse of the point to come that such love and obedience ultimately comes from God. But before going there, consider the insight of Thomas á Kempis as to the need for love in obedience to Christ:
Surely high words do not make a man holy and just; but a virtuous life maketh him dear to God… If thou dist know the whole Bible by heart, and the sayings of all the philosophers, what would all that profit thee without the love of God and without grace? Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity, except to love God, and to serve Him only (Of the Imitation of Christ: I).
Once again, there is a balance between obedience (living a virtuous life) and resting in the love and grace of God. Kempis makes it clear that without love of God, obedience is nothing but vanity. Love of God is necessary in the pursuit of holiness.

The pursuit of holiness also requires love of others. In Scripture it is impossible to separate love of God from love of others. When Jesus gave the greatest commandment, he attached the second to it, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). Just three chapters later in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus makes the connection again: “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me” (25:40). Love of God and love of others go together. It might be possible for one to think that we can give to the poor, serve others, and proclaim the Gospel out of love for God and not for others. The apostle Paul dispels of this thought in his first letter to the Corinthians. He writes, “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing” (13:3). The rest of the chapter is dedicated to describing what love of others looks like. It is essential to pursuing holiness. Without it there is no gain.

The final point addresses how love of God and love of others is possible. The pursuit of holiness requires that we love God and others through the Spirit of God. Consider again the greatest commandment given by Jesus, “Love the Lord your God.” This is a command. Then consider Jesus’ statement, “If you love me you will obey my commandments.” It is a vicious circle. It is a chicken and egg scenario. Which comes first—our obedience to obey the command to love God, or our love of God leading to obedience? Jesus gives the solution to this problem when he says, “If you love me you will obey my commandments. And I will ask my Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever” (John 14:15,16). The Helper is the Spirit of truth in the next verse. The Spirit of God gives the love that is required. In The Saying of the Desert Fathers there is a story about a group of men were excited about the abundance of a good harvest. Abba John, however, knew where fruitfulness in the Christian life comes from. He said to them, “So it is when the Holy Spirit descends into the hearts of men; they are renewed and they put forth leaves in the fear of God” (87). It is the Spirit that brings life into our obedience. And it is no surprise that the first fruit named among the fruit of the Spirit is love. The Spirit gives us the love that is necessary to pursue holiness.

Obedience is important. It is not everything, but it must not be neglected. Cornelius Plantinga, in his book Engaging God’s World, states the matter clearly: “Christians have been good at talking, and writing, and talking some more. And some have been pretty good at doing, too. But it’s possible for reform-minded people to overestimate their rhetoric and underestimate the job” (118). But then again, there is a way of “doing” that leads to hell. The Pharisees were good at it. Without love, which only comes through the Spirit by the grace of God, there is no gain. Love and obedience must work in tandem.

Offending for the right reasons

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:59:01 -0700

Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission. (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2001) ISBN: 978-0-8308-1552-4

Review by Zach Cann
Trinity Graduate School

Do not be quick with your mouth; do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few.
Ecclesiastes 5:2 (ESV)

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.
James 1:19-20 (ESV)

Western culture has a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. Listening is a lost art. According to author and professor, Tite Tiénu, Christendom suffers from what he calls “the dialogue of the deaf between the West and the rest” as western Christians attempt to judge what is right and wrong from a distance. There are too many words being spoken, too many judgments being made, and not enough questions being asked. Tiénu points out that the solution to such division and strife is to listen and learn from one another again. It is important to note, however, that “the dialogue of the deaf” is not restricted to within Christianity alone. Harold Netland, in his book Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission, raises questions about “the relation of Christianity to non-Christian religious traditions” (23). Netland asserts that in order to address these questions one must first be "asking what it means to be the recipient of God's Word in this present world” and in that inquiry seek “an in-depth theological engagement with the phenomena of religions” (312). Netland argues convincingly that as our awareness of other religions grows so does our need to be better listeners of God (as he has spoken to us through Scripture), and better listeners of other religious traditions.

Throughout the first half of the book, Netland presents the context for religious pluralism in the west by showing the progressive awareness of other religious traditions. He explains how Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the Americas would forever change “how Europeans, including Christians, viewed the world and, in turn, understood themselves” (93). Future explorations to the Africa and Asia and “the success of nineteen-century missions” (105) introduced many non-Christian religions to the Western world. From there awareness has only grown. Netland makes it clear from the very beginning: “Our awareness of ‘religious others’ has never been more acute than it is today” (23).

Netland goes on to prove that the West has not only become more aware of other religions, but has taken part in the move toward religious pluralism. He suggests that a “loss of confidence in traditional religion” and “awareness of cultural and religious diversity” have led to more pluralistic view in regards to religion (56). Western culture and society, which has been strongly linked with Christianity for centuries, has become more and more accepting of minority religious views. One of the many ways Netland explains this shift is by comparing the 1893 World Parliament of Religions with the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religion. In the hundred years between the two Parliaments there was a significant move away from the exclusivity of Christianity to a very strong pluralistic ethos—“the assumption that each religious tradition is in its own way legitimate and right for its adherents” (118). For many in the West, this seemed like the rational response to all the religions of the world. John Hick, a proponent for religious pluralism and the focus of several chapters in Netland’s book, showed “that it can be rational for those who experience God in their lives to believe in God on that basis,” thereby shifting the debate away from the Christianity’s rationality (172-173).

In the second half of the book, Netland moves from the context of religious pluralism to a strategy for how to engage it. He begins by showing the problem pluralism has with conflicting truth claims—the fact that “religions do make distinctive claims about reality, and these claims do at times conflict” (188). Furthermore, he shows that in certain circumstances “it can be rational to believe what is in fact false” (269). In other words, it may be rational, at times, for people to accept conflicting beliefs, but this does not solve the problem of truth. Rationality is not the only issue—there is truth at stake. Netland argues that Christians must respond to the challenges leveled by religious pluralism not only by critiquing it, but also, by showing that “non-Christians too ought to accept the truth claims of Christianity” (260).

Netland is not ignorant of the fact that there have been Christians who “have been overly aggressive in evangelism and apologetics, subjecting other religions to ridicule” (283). Netland reserves his last chapter for how to engage religious pluralism in an appropriate manner. He persuasively argues that if theology involves “the intellectual struggle to understand what it means to be a recipient of God’s Word in this present world” (311) and this present world is characterized by religious diversity and new religious movements, then there must be “an in-depth theological engagement with the phenomena of religions” (312). Netland suggests what he believes to be required for an adequate theology of religions:
It must be shaped by the teachings, values and assumptions of the Bible and be faithful to the central confession of the church throughout the centuries. It must be phenomenologically accurate in how it depicts the beliefs, institutions and practices of the other religions.
Put another way, one might say that an adequate theology of religion requires one to listen humbly—to listen to God through his Word and through the church, and to listen to people of other religions in order to accurately understand their context.

All in all, Netland’s argument is thorough and convincing. No doubt, much of the credit for this goes to his mentor and friend, John Hick. Although Netland disagrees with Hick on numerous points, Hick’s strong intellectual reasons for religious pluralism provide a powerful counter-argument that must be addressed. This allowed Netland to skillfully use his prescribed theology of religions to address Hick’s challenges. As seen above, Netland spends half of his book explaining the context and manifestations of religious pluralism (even giving a whole chapter to John Hick’s argument). John Hicks, in essence, helped make Netland’s article stronger by forcing him to address some serious challenges to the Christian faith.

Netland then uses the second half of the book to respectfully address why religious pluralism is not the answer our religiously diverse world. Perhaps the most powerful section of the book comes at the end where Netland proclaims, without shame, that Christ is the answer for people. Whether people use religion to find God or hide from God (335), the reality is that they can only be saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ.

Netland’s method of cultural engagement is very irenic in that is calls for Christians to show respect, be culturally sensitive, and to listen humbly (282-283). However, Netland realizes that, even when spoken in love, the gospel offends people. The gospel proclaims that faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation and a justified status before God. Netland makes it very clear in his arguments that his desire is for Christ to be glorified and proclaimed. He rejects any apologetic or strategy that is too ignorant or disrespectful of other religions because “it is a reproach to the cause of Christ…[it] is not only ineffective but, more importantly, fundamentally unchristian” (283). On the flip side, Netland does believe there is a good reason to offend: the gospel. He writes, “Although the gospel was no more acceptable in the first century than it is today, the apostle Paul’s passion for evangelism rested upon his conviction that it ‘is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes’” (346).

The greatest weakness of Netland’s argument comes when he addresses the question about whether or not people who have never heard the gospel can be saved. In answering the question, Netland does point out that “what evangelicals share by way of basic commitments [to Scripture] is far more significant than any differences among them” (320). This is a good point, and the truths about Scripture he points out are wonderful. However, it is odd that there is no mention of either God’s promises or of prayer. Here at the climax of Netland’s book there are two foundational keys missing! It is like presenting people with the Great Commission without ending it with Jesus’ words, “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt 28:20b). Netland deals with the issues involved in making disciples in a pluralistic world, but he fails to point to where we can find the hope to do so. There is great hope in this calling to make disciples in a religiously diverse world because in Revelation we read about Jesus: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (5:9). There is great hope in the work of God in this world. And this is why there is also a great need for prayer. (One might say it is part of the process of listening to God.) Prayer is needed in the sending out of Christians to proclaim the gospel. In Luke 10:2, Jesus says, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.” Prayer is also needed in the way we use the Word of God. Paul tells the Ephesians to take up “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication” (6:17-18).
Christians need to rely on the promises of God and need to be dedicated to prayer while pursuing a theology of religions because there is no way a human being can follow Netland’s strategy without divine help. Christians are not perfect people. They will almost assuredly not always interpret scripture well and accurately understand the culture and religious tradition they are addressing. If we, as Christians, are going to have an adequate theology of religions we will need to do so on the foundation God’s promises and prayer. Netland may imply this when he speaks of being “shaped” by Scripture, but in such circumstances it is important to be explicit. As we offend for the right reasons, let us pray that God might save some (Rom 12:1).

Religion as a means to evade God

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:51:39 -0700

C. S. Lewis uses analogy of a ship at sea to teach three basic ethical questions. First question, How do we keep this ship from sinking? Second, How do we keep it from bumping into other ships? And lastly, but most importantly, Why is the ship out there in the first place? Ravi Zacharias, in his book Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message, claims that most people “at best deal with the first and second questions” (111). These questions deal with personal and social ethics. Zacharias makes the point that few people broach the topic of ultimate meaning because “if one does not know one’s purpose, any destination will do” (111). Then why does it seem that world is full of religious people? The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines religion as “the service and worship of God or the supernatural” (merriam-webster.com). On the one hand it may seem as if all people are searching for meaning and truth in various religions and deities, but on the other there is the Biblical assertion that “no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Romans 3:12). How are these to be reconciled? I will argue here that man uses religion to run, hide, and excuse himself from the very truth he claims to seek.

Man uses religion to run from the commands of God. In this there is an aspect of fear of ultimate truth. John Hare, in God’s Call, suggests that we as humans put our “affections for advantage” above our affections for God—“an improper regard for the self” and one’s own happiness (57). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that humans would fear a God who claims his way is above their own. In the book of Isaiah God claims absolute authority, “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other” (42:8). Like the story of Jonah, man runs from the commands of God, trying to escape a calling that seems unpleasant. Whether people know God or believe in God matters not to this argument. C. S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, concludes that human beings know there is a Natural law—“a curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way” (21). However, instead of pursuing the source of this idea they flee the one that might hold them accountable to such a law. Other religions offer people a perceived refuge from the demanding God of Christianity. It is, as Hare puts it, “the choice between putting first either ourselves or the glory of God” (59). Many choose themselves and flee the God who would demand otherwise.

Man uses religion to hide from the presence of God. For those confronted with the shame of failing to follow God’s moral law, religion can serve as a way to hide. C. S. Lewis points out that human beings are “haunted by the idea of a sort of behavior they ought to practice…[and] that they did not in fact do so” (26). This causes people to hide from one who might hold them responsible for such actions. In Engaging Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission, Harold A. Netland explains that although people might “long for a proper relationship of the creature to the Creator… they are rebels and sinners and thus try desperately to hide from God.” (335). Many people assume that if they can put themselves under a different God or a new standard, then God and his word no longer applies to them. Chris Wright, in Christians and Other Religions, states the case best when he says, “If the immediate response of the fallen Adam in us is to hide from the presence of the living God, what more effective way could there be than through religious activity which gives us the illusion of having met and satisfied him?” (5).

Man uses religion to excuse himself of responsibility before God. Adam tried to hide from God, but once God found him out Adam had to find another avenue to protect himself. When God’s asks Adam, “Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” Adam’s reply is, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (Genesis 3:11,12). He shifts the blame to God and to someone else. The woman is a fault for causing him to disobey and God is at fault for creating the woman in the first place. Man continues this charade even today. Man takes his arbitrary morality that C. S. Lewis lays out in the first chapter of Mere Christianity—question like “how would you like it if anyone did the same to you?” or “That’s not fair!”—and he applies it to God. All of a sudden, God is held to man’s sense of morality. Other religions try to limit God act on human standards of love, mercy, and fairness. Even here we see “affection for justice” being hampered and overthrown by man’s “affection for advantage” (Hare, 57).

In conclusion, it seems as if man’s seeming quest for truth is the very thing he uses to keep God at bay. At this point it is pertinent to note that even Christian religiosity can suffer such a fate when we try to appease and justify ourselves instead of leaning fully into the free grace of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Netland puts it well when he writes, “It is often our religiosity (even ‘Christian’ religiosity)—our attempts to try to impress God or to earn his favor through following carefully prescribed religious rituals and rules—that keeps us furthest away from him” (335).

Digesting Religion in The Office

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:39:51 -0700

An Opinion and Editorial Article
Written By Zach Cann and Nicole Ondrik
Trinity Graduate School

“When Mary was denied a room at the inn, Jesus was born. When Michael was denied a room at the inn we don’t know what happens because that story hasn’t been told yet.” It is true. As the viewer watches Michael Scott search for a way to procure a hotel room the night before his co-workers’ wedding, no one knows where he will end up. On Thursday, October 8, 2009, 9.1 million viewers tuned in to NBC’s popular television show, The Office, to see Michael’s co-workers, Pam and Jim, get married. The one-hour wedding special was riddled with religious references like Michael’s allusion to the birth of Jesus. How are the masses interpreting these spiritually loaded jokes and themes in popular television?

Author and professor, Stewart M. Hoover, argues that audiences participate in ‘meaning-making’ as they consume media. According to Hoover, the audience takes part in an interpretive process as they view television shows such as The Office. Each interpretation is unique to the viewer because each viewer encounters media with a different ideological, spiritual, and cultural lens. Hoover suggests that meaningful interpretation happens when the audience connects what they are watching with their individual “cultures and with [their] remembered and imagined pasts and sources of insight and meaning.” Thus, it stands to reason that the viewers of The Office are constructing personal meaning and interpretations from the religious references.

In order to produce meaningful interpretations of religious references in The Office, viewers need at least a basic level of religious literacy. According to Stephen Prothero religious literacy is “the ability to understand and use in one’s day-to-day life the basic building blocks of religious traditions – their key terms, symbols, doctrines, practices, sayings, characters, metaphors, and narratives.” Unfortunately, Prothero also asserts that the current cultural climate is one of religious illiteracy. He says that the civic problem of religious illiteracy results in citizens who are unable to challenge, interpret, and understand elements of public life, including mass media. If audiences are not receiving religious education outside of that taught by television then their power to interpret, analyze, and engage with religion is crippled. Without religious literacy, audiences will struggle to meaningfully participate in the interpretive process.

Without religious literacy, dialogues and jokes in The Office will guide viewers towards a shallow understanding of religion. Take this dialogue for example:
Michael: “Why don’t you tell us a little about the origins of [Diwali]?”
Kelly: “Uh. Um, I don’t know its really old, I think.”
Angela: “How many gods do you have?”
Kelly: “Like hundreds, I think, maybe more than that.”
In this sequence Kelly, a Hindu, does not portray a clear understanding of her religious heritage. We laugh at her ignorance, but if allusions like this are the religious diet of our culture, what does that say of our own intelligence? If Kelly is our teacher of Hinduism, Angela and Pam’s grandma of conservative Christianity, and Creed of religious cults, then we will be insufficiently prepared to face the complex religious interactions of daily life. A disciple of The Office would have difficulty engaging not only in interpersonal relationships with people of different faiths, but they would also struggle to engage with religious issues on a public or civic level. As Prothero asserts, issues of homosexual marriage, separation of church and state, and international relations are all religiously loaded subjects. People need religious literacy in order to create opinions and effectively engage in these controversies. The troubling fact is, that with viewing numbers in the nine millions, it seems likely that people are disciples of The Office.

The Office is not the problem in and of itself. Kevin’s Kleenex-box shoes and Dwight’s gifting of turtle-eating paraphernalia are just two small examples of the simple hilarity that The Office brings to primetime television. The problem, rather, is that the jokes and jests of The Office are falling on religiously illiterate ears. Viewers will be unable to make meaningful connections between their individual lives or experiences and the themes of the show. The key, then, to productive and responsible media consumption is to view it as peripheral education rather than central. The religion in The Office should be the dessert to a well-balanced diet of religious education. A well-balanced religious diet might come from religion classes, religious texts and academic writing, even engaging with religious practitioners themselves. Enjoy the dessert, but get your nutrients elsewhere.

Bibliography

"Diwali." The Office. National Broadcasting Corporation. www.nbc.com. 2 Nov. 2006.
Hoover, Stewart M. Religion in the Media Age. New York: Routledge, 2006.
"Niagara Part 1." The Office. National Broadcasting Corporation. www.nbc.com. 8 Oct. 2009.
Prothero, Stephen. Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – And Doesn’t. New York: HarperCollins, 2008.
Tanklefsky, David. “Primetime Ratings: Wedding Bells Ring In Ratings for ‘The Office.’” Broadcasting and Cable blog. Posted October 9, 2009. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/357469-Primetime_Ratings_Wedding_Bells_Ring_In_Ratings_For_The_Office_.php. (accessed October 10, 2009).

Confronting Ancestor Practices

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:33:54 -0700

An article entitled “Ancestor Practices in the Muslim World: A Problem of Contextualization from Central Asia” by Rabban Sauma (a pseudonym) presents several issues raised in a letter written by several pastors and missionaries to church leaders in Central Asia. The letter addresses concern over how pastors and churches interpret scripture and interact with their Muslim neighbors. The problems facing these churches are Muslim ancestor practices, where funeral meals and memorial feasts are practiced to venerate the dead. No doubt, these practices have spiritual significance, but have great familial and cultural significance as well. It can be difficult to distinguish where spiritual significance ends and familial impact begins. Problems in the church arise as Muslim-background believers (MBBs) seek to worship the God of the Bible, while at the same time honoring their families. Sauma explains that MBBs are encouraged to remain apart of their cultural context for the purpose of “social stability and because evangelism is more effective when MBBs do not extract themselves from the Muslim community” (Sauma: 327). This can be difficult when churches perceive various family practices as idolatrous, even demonic.

Contextual Concern

Sauma suggests two main problems with how churches have addressed Muslim ancestor practices in the past. First, he shows how churches have focused more on the doctrines of Islam and less on the way people actually live (Sauma: 339). Western missionaries are guilty of this when they do not take the time to understand why ancestor veneration exists in a religion thought to be strictly monotheistic. Nationals can also be guilty of this when they blindly forbid or encourage certain actions without taking into account the impact of such actions. Sauma suggests “we do better to think of Islam and the way Muslims live as a single cultural domain and an integral religious experience” (Sauma: 340). In other words, it is important to realize that their action communicate a lot about what they believe. In the same way, Christians in this context must realize that their actions speak powerfully about what they believe to the Muslim world around them. Thus, when a MBB honors his family by participating in an ancestor ritual, he/she is able to communicate 1) that the Bible allows for (even encourages) remembering and honoring ancestors, and 2) that he/she loves and respects his/her family and their traditions. In this way “both divine truth and social honor are preserved” (Sauma: 329).

Secondly, but of equal importance, Sauma shows how the church has been weak and careless in their understanding and application of Scripture. He shows how superficial readings of 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 have led many in the church to dismiss all meals dedicated to ancestor veneration as sinful, and thus as something to be avoided. And then there are those in the churches who participate because of the command in Exodus to honor your father and mother, but do so with much internal conflict because they believe it is sin (Sauma: 329). Part of the reason MBBs are having trouble living rightly with their families and before God is because their understanding of Scripture is weak. In the letter composed by the churches it states very clearly at the beginning, “If you understand what God's Word says about these things, your witness to your friends and relatives will be stronger” (Sauma: 331).

Hermeneutic

Both Sauma’s article and the letter to the “messianic assemblies” are saturated with Scripture references that serve to show how the Bible addresses cultural issues like the ones being faced by the church today in Central Asia. A powerful example of this can be seen in the letter where the writers use a story in 2 Kings 5 to show how God gives believers freedom to attend pagan practices, such as the ancestor feasts of the Muslim community. They give a detailed account of Naaman healing from leprosy and repentance before God. They then share how Naaman requested to serve and respect the King of Syria by bowing down with him in the temple of Rimmon. To this they show Elijah’s amazing response, “Go in peace.” They suggest these verses show how one can respect the beliefs of another, while not worshiping other gods or ancestors in your heart. From this passage of Scripture they conclude “that a Muslim follower of [Jesus] is allowed to help his Muslim relatives when they host the funeral (janaza) and memorial feasts, as Naaman did for his king. If a messianic believer refuses to do so, how will his relatives and friends believe his witness about [Jesus]?” (Sauma: 335).

Throughout the article Sauma argues for the need to understand Scripture in its entirety. Superficial readings of the Bible can allow for verses to be misunderstood and misapplied. Being faithful to this belief, the writers attempt to address some of the misunderstood passages. They show how 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 allow for the freedom to participate in ancestor meals. But at the same time they show the restrictions involved. For example, in 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 14 where scripture warns people not to cause a fellow brother to stumble. And they conclude that section with 1 Corinthians 11:1 where Paul says, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” Those writing the letter use this verse to point out that Paul’s faith “was strong and his conscience pure, so he shared the table of the pagan Greeks and ate their forbidden (haram) food without shaming them, giving thanks to God for his daily bread” (Sauma: 337).

Evaluation

Sauma presents and solid and convincing case study by applying biblical truth to a deep understanding of culture. Sauma’s article in many ways resounds with the words of Paul Hiebert in the article “Critical Contextualization” where he writes, “The gospel must be contextualized, but it also must remain prophetic” (Hiebert: 109, emphasis added). Sauma does a great job of thoroughly considering the culture of Islamic Central Asia, but then also thoroughly studying God’s Word. He uses the authority of Scripture to show MBBs how they can engage their Muslim families in way that shows love, respect, and “gives praise to the One God” (Sauma: 336). Sauma and the writers of the letter assert the absolute authority of Scripture as seen in the section on hermeneutics. But they also see the dire need for the gospel message to be lived out in the culture that needs to see and hear the message of Isa (Jesus). Dean Flemming, in his book Contextualization in the New Testament, voices the importance allowing the gospel to address culture: “Whenever people embrace the truth of the gospel, they must do so in relation to their preexisting worldviews and patters of relationships if it is going to carry any meaning for them” (Flemming: 121).

It is hard to find weaknesses in Sauma’s article. He is biblical and thorough, readily admitting that he “cannot deal with every problem” that might arise from such a complex issue (Sauma: 331). However, other case studies have suggested some challenges that may offer helpful perspective for Rabban Sauma and the church in Central Asia. Scott Grandi, in an article about contextualization in Taiwan regarding funeral rites, he presents Christian history as one of the challenges that needs to be overcome. In his context “the Christian community has a history of over one hundred years, with set traditions. These ‘Christian customs’ are in some cases just as important as non-Christian customs are to non- Christians, and to make changes in these customs is now nearly impossible” (Grandi: 8). The situation is not all that different for the church in Central Asia. Christian influence and tradition (although small) has been around for centuries. It might be helpful to acknowledge the deep-set values of “messianic believers” that have some biblical and historical root. One letter may get church leaders thinking, but it might be too eager to assume that things so deeply rooted (such as the church’s aversion to ancestor practices) will change overnight. Paul Hiebert explains how a missionary might do this in an article entitled “The Missionary as Mediator in Globalizing Theology.” He writes, “A mediator cannot side fully with either party… helping each to see the other’s perspective” (Hiebert: 304). This perspective may help the leading pastors and missionaries be patient in seeing transformation and dialogue occur between religious traditions as stubborn as Islam and Christianity.

Response

I have a lot of respect for what Sauma and his team of missionaries and pastors have done to address this issue of ancestor practices in the Muslim world. Their understanding of the culture and their respect for it astounds me. I would be naïve to try to improve upon the cultural exegesis presented in both the article and the letter. This is not to say that it is complete or perfect, but rather my understanding of Muslim culture has only benefited from their careful analysis. Were I to analyze the culture today I would no doubt fall into the trap of classifying ancestor veneration as merely a sign of “folk Islam.” I am grateful for Sauma’s wisdom and guidance on this point.

In regards to their use of Scripture, it is wonderful, but I would add a word of caution. Several times in the article Sauma talks about actions that “bring on persecution unnecessarily” (Sauma: 328, 341, 343). In arguing for respecting the beliefs and practices of another religion he begins to dampen the reality of persecution. We are called to love our neighbor, not avoid persecution. Let the words of Jesus sink in here:
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. (John 15:19-21)
The world—Muslim ancestor worshipers included—is going to hate those who follow after Jesus. If we are going to follow Hiebert’s advice of being contextual and prophetic with the gospel, we must be clear that the world will persecute us for the gospel. It is very dangerous to avoid persecution because even without realizing it we can begin to proclaim a gospel that is not of God, for “indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). God’s word promises us that this will be true. We must be careful not to teach or preach otherwise.

Along the same lines, Sauma might have some more room to grow in the bold proclamation of the gospel message. Offend for the right reasons. Sauma is right to say, “Do everything you can to offend neither your Muslim relatives nor your fellow believers in the messianic assembly” (Sauma: 338). However, one must be prepared to offend for the right reasons. As Sauma teaches others “listen to the voice of God, go where God sends him, say what God gives him to say, thanking the One God for everything” (Sauma: 338) he must be careful to teach MBBs that they do not need to “be ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16). Sauma’s article does a great job of teaching MBBs to not fear nor disregard to cultures God intends to reach with the gospel, but there is some room for him to explain how they might share the truth about Isa (Jesus) dying for their sins. He teaches MBBs how to biblically love and respect their families, but he must also teach them the artful task of “knowing nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). Jesus’ death and resurrection for our sakes is certainly worth offending for.

Knowledge of Sin and Knowledge of Christ

Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:28:39 -0700

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is seen sharing a meal with tax collectors and sinners. When asked why he would do such a thing, Jesus replies, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (2:17). The call of Jesus to sinners is clear right from the start. The first words out of Jesus’ mouth in the Gospel of Mark are, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (1:15). Therefore it is no surprise that theologians and philosophers have repeatedly dealt with the doctrine of sin. What is it? Are we indeed guilty of it? And if so, who or what can save us from it? Both John E. Hare and C. S. Lewis phrase similar questions in terms of morality. Hare, in his book God’s Call: Moral Realism, God’s Command’s, and Human Autonomy, puts this question to his readers: “Why should I accept the moral demand as a demand upon me?” (52). Knowledge of our own sin and the “moral demand” on us is absolutely necessary and yet, in itself, inadequate for moral agents to know Christ as they ought. Notice the word and in the title of this essay. Right standing before God, according to Christian doctrine, requires knowledge of sin and Christ—not sin or Christ. Both are essential.

If knowledge of sin is an essential part of following Jesus’ command to “repent” then it is helpful to discuss how one might attain such knowledge. C. S. Lewis, in his well-known book Mere Christianity, points out that human beings seem to “have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it” (21), which can also be seen by the long list of moral laws seen throughout various cultural contexts in the appendix of Lewis’ The Abolition of Man. This conclusion echoes Paul’s letter to the Romans, where he writes, “[T]he work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (2:15). And then Paul explains the connection between perception of the law and knowledge of sin: “For by the works of the law no human being will be justified in [God’s] sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (3:20). From this it seems that human beings must inherently have some knowledge of sin. It is by no means comprehensive knowledge, but there is a certain definitive awareness of the law, and thus, a certain definitive knowledge of sin.

Knowledge of our own sin is essential to know Jesus. By know, I do not simply mean intellectual comprehension of sin itself, but also an understanding of our sinful condition before God. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus compares two men: a Pharisee and a tax collector. The Pharisee acknowledges the sin of the tax collector, but not of himself. In comparing himself to another he found himself justified before God. The tax collector, in contrast, acknowledges his own sin before God: “God, be merciful to me, a sinner” (18:13). Human beings ought to have knowledge of their own failure to obey the commands of God. John Hare addresses this idea in his discussion on divine command theory where he explains “that what makes something obligatory for us is that God commands it” (49). No human being stands in obedience before God’s commands. C. S. Lewis affirms that although people have some concept of moral action, “they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature [morality]; they break it” (21). Paul makes a similar assertion: “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). All human beings have knowledge of sin, but this knowledge must cause each to realize his or her standing before God in order to “repent” as Jesus’ calls them to in Mark 1:15. We cannot know Jesus as we ought until we have knowledge of our own sin before him.

Knowledge of sin is inadequate to know Jesus. People must not only know sin for what it is, but they must also know Jesus for who he is. As Hare argues, we might have an awareness of our own sin, but we are still controlled by our “affection for advantage” (57). This “improper regard for the self” is what leads many to choose not to repent and believe in the gospel as Jesus commands. Hare makes reference to Lucifer and the fallen angels and how they coveted happiness “more than they wanted God to have everything good” (58). However, it is clear that they still know Jesus in some sense. At the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry in the Gospel of Mark, an “unclean spirit” says, “I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” Not even his disciples knew this yet! But obviously this knowledge is not the knowledge of which we are speaking. Going back to Jesus’ command in Mark 1:15, humans need to “repent and believe in the gospel.” It is not mere understanding of Jesus, but belief in Jesus. Knowledge of sin—even knowledge of our own sin—does not lead us to repentance or belief. It would be like ending Lewis’ Mere Christianity after the first five chapters, where there is knowledge of sin and knowledge of a supreme power, but no idea how to relate the two. For Christians, belief in Jesus is that connection. As Jesus himself says in the Gospel of John, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” And then comes the key phrase concerning this kind of knowledge: “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.”

There is no right standing before God without knowledge of sin and knowledge of Jesus. But as evidenced above, such knowledge is not merely intellectual comprehension. Sin must be recognized in one’s own life and Jesus must be known and trusted as Lord and Savior. This is the only way in which one is able to “repent” of sin and “believe in the gospel” of Jesus Christ.

An review of relevance

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:53:49 -0700

Joy Anderson, in her article “Behold the Ox of God”, claims that redemptive analogies can be used to present the gospel to the Dinka people, a tribe in south central Sudan. Using personal experience and research done by Francis M. Deng, Anderson explains that the Dinka culture “displays many…bridges to the gospel” (Anderson, 316). She gives examples of how the Dinka understanding of animal sacrifices, the need for atonement, and the role of a priest (to name a few) can be used to lead them to understand Jesus and His atoning work on the cross. The article presents “redemptive analogies” as an effective way to present the gospel to another culture, based on the principle that the message of the Bible “can fulfill the needs of a culture according to its own value system” (Anderson, 320).

Throughout the article, Anderson uses scripture to show how the Bible addresses the questions, values, and desires of the Dinka culture. In one example, Anderson explains how the Dinka value immortality and seek to accomplish this through procreation. Anderson first points out that procreation is indeed advocated by the Bible by pointing to Genesis 1:28 where God gives the command to be fruitful and multiply. She then goes on to show how verses like 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 give a greater vision of immortality, “for in Christ we have a life eternal which far surpasses life on earth” (Anderson, 319).

Every cultural example Anderson gives follows the same pattern. First, she introduces an aspect of Dinka culture. Second, she explains the reasoning behind the particular Dinka practice or belief. And finally, she shows how Jesus fits into their particular longings and cultural needs. This pattern can be seen in how Anderson addresses the most prevalent cultural theme in Dinka culture—the role of the ox. Anderson begins by describing how cattle are an essential element to the Dinka’s way of living. In Dinka culture cattle can be used for everything from a source of food to a gift to purchase a bride. Anderson points out that “even the grammatical structure of Dinka language reflects the importance of cattle” (Anderson, 316). Anderson then goes to scripture to show how Jesus is “the ox of God.” Jesus is the sacrificial ox we need to be made right with God. Jesus is the “personality ox” (317) who is to be imitated in personality and character. Jesus is the “bride wealth” (319)—the sacrificial ox that makes our relationship with God stable and secure. And lastly, Jesus is our “bull of peace” (320) who releases us from our guilt and through his blood makes peace between God and us. Each step of the way Anderson offers scripture references to show how Jesus fulfills these various roles even though scripture does not use the term “ox”.

There is biblical precedent for Anderson’s approach to contextualization. In Acts chapter 17, Paul addresses a crowd in the Areopagus in Athens and acknowledges their religious culture. He points out a particular aspect of their culture when he points out the altar with the inscription “To the unknown god.’ He then uses this cultural knowledge to point to “the God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth” (Acts 17:24, ESV). Paul uses something cultural to point to God and the peoples’ need to repent and believe in God. The focus here is that God’s Word answers the questions and desires of a culture. Anderson’s view is that God “has spoken to the Dinkas as he spoke to the Jews and to all other cultures” (Anderson, 320). Anderson is not alone in her understanding of contextualization. Dean Flemming, in his book Contextualization in the New Testament, points out that early Jewish Christians needed “to understand that God granted salvation to Gentiles as Gentiles” (Flemming, 37). Anderson’s article is suggesting that missionaries today ought to do the same.

Anderson presents a very compelling case, but it is not without its dangers. Her hermeneutical approach is incomplete. Although Flemming might agree with Anderson’s approach to be culturally relevant, he also states the Bible shows us “that the truth of the gospel cannot be compromised” and that Scripture plays a crucial role in “guiding the community” (Flemming, 49). In other words, Scripture not only addresses the questions, values, and desires of a culture, but also serves to guide those questions, values, and desire in another direction at times. This second half is mostly absent in Anderson’s article. To use the terms of Charles Kraft, in his book Appropriate Christianity, any approach to contextualization must be both “appropriate to the cultural context…and also to the Bible” (Kraft, 4). Anderson clearly describes a way to be appropriate to the Dinka culture, but give little guidance on how the Dinkas need to live appropriate to Scripture.

Anderson’s approach to contextualization, although incomplete in this article, appeals in many ways to my understanding of missions. In the first paragraph of the article she references two books by Don Richardson, both of which I have read and enjoyed. I understand the perspective she is writing from. She has a love for people and for culture—that is plain. It is also evident that she loves Jesus and desires that all cultures, including the Dinka, might know Him. There is no compromise on the gospel. The solution she offers to each of the particular cultural needs is Jesus. She does not offer other solutions in the pursuit of syncretism. She proclaims Christ alone. The supremacy of the triune God is of utmost importance in any attempt at contextualization. Scripture makes it clear that “all things were created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16b). Or as Paul puts it so bluntly in his letter to the Romans, “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Romans 11:36).

The danger that I see in Anderson’s article is the lack of awareness that human questions, values, and desires are opposed to God. Jesus may indeed be the answer to our questions and the satisfaction for our values and desires, but the reality is we crave and desire a multitude of things apart from God. The Bible makes it quite clear, “No one seeks after God” (Romans 3:11) and we are ruled by “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes” (1 John 2:16). In every culture and every person there are desires that must be changed. In class we discussed the need for Scripture to not only be relevant, but to also be prophetic. Jesus can certainly be the Ox of God to the Dinka people, but do they realize their need for him? Jesus was introduced to the Jews as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” Jesus is indeed relevant, but he is also a transforming force. Anderson spends little time addressing how Christ might transform the Dinka people into one of the many tribes, tongues, and nations that will worship before the throne God someday.

Works Cited
Anderson, Joy, “Behold the Ox of God?” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34:3 (Jul 1998):316-320.

Flemming, Dean, Contextualization in the New Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005.

Kraft, Charles H., ed. Appropriate Christianity. Pasadena: William Carey, 2005.

All scripture references are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001.

A day in the life...

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:55:39 -0700

For those of you who are a little curious about where I am and what I am doing I put together a little photo album for you... click here for the photo album.

The photo above is of the four of us who live in our 4 bedroom suite. I am the tall one with the big hands. John is the one with the Purdue shirt pointing at the camera. He’s a farmer from Ohio :) Elliot is the one promoting peace... yeah, he’s from California. And although you can’t really see it, he’s got red polka-dot hair. And last but not least, Jerry is the roommate crawling through the wall of flames. Seriously, Jerry made that piece of artwork with plaster and paint. If you want to see Jerry in person you can check out album above :)

Enjoy!